Juststeve

The phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was popularized by Carl Sagan although not original to him. I think most skeptics would agree with the formulation but how does it apply to the Historical Jesus?

The first thing to notice is that there are many extraordinary claims made about Jesus none of which is supported by extraordinary evidence. For example, the claims that he walked on the water, brought people back from the dead, and rose from the dead himself are extraordinary claims. It is the absence of extraordinary evidence that makes it appropriate for one of a skeptical mind to reject those claims and all skeptics I know do. These are not however the only claims made about Jesus.

Some of the other claims made about Jesus that are by no means extraordinary. That he lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, that he preached, that he gathered a band of followers, that he traveled from place to place with his followers, that he got cross wise with the Romans and crucified. These are the claims made by those who believe in an historical Jesus and are by no means extraordinary. There is simply no reason for a fair minded skeptic to demand extraordinary unimpeachable evidence to support mundane claims of that sort, yet they do. To do so suggests an agenda having nothing to do with skepticism. What that agenda is probably varies from myther to myther, but it is by no means an exercise of rational skepticism.

Steve

hjalti

I don't think that mythicists want "extraordinary evidence" for the historical Jesus.

aa5874

The claims made about Jesus in the Canon were NOT considered extra-ordinary or implausible in antiquity.

People of antiquity BELIEVED God made Adam from DIRT and used some SPARE RIBS to make Eve so he could have made Jesus and just put him in the womb of Mary.

Every story in the Canon is perfectly plausible in antiquity and that is PRECISELY why they are there.

The author of the Interpolated gMark used ALL of gMark and added 12 verses of post-resurrection "history" where the resurrected Jesus Commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel.

Every Gospel writer used that piece of "history" and supposedly Multiple attested that Jesus was RAISED from the dead and THEN commisioned the DISCIPLES.

The order to preach the Gospel is from the ALREADY dead Jesus and it was accepted in antiquity as perfectly plausible .

If the already DEAD Jesus did NOT commission the disciples to preach the Gospel then there would be no preaching of the Gospel.

The HJ argument cannot be maintained because it must first DISCREDIT the very sources for their HJ and begin to invent ad hoc explanations inundated with logical fallacies.

I know this from Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist"--it is filled with Logical fallacies and suported by admitted unreliable sources.

All the written statements of antiquity support a Non-historical Jesus and that is precisely why Scholars are looking for a human Jesus.

Scholars themselves think there is some thing radically non-historical about NT Jesus and are on a 250 year search that has appeared to have ended in disaster by Ehrman.

Juststeve

hjalti:

Mythers demand evidence far more definite and less subject to quibble than that which convinces main stream scholars with jobs in leading universities around the world. In the field of ancient history evidence that is beyond question is extraordinary. Why the high standard?

Steve

Toto

It is patently false to claim that mythicists put the stardard of evidence higher for Jesus than for other ancient figures. This has been refuted so often you should be ashamed to waste our time bringing it up again.

aa5874

Your post is the Ehrman approach--just diatribe.

Ehrman was a disaster so I don't think you will be able to do much better.

The book has been written and your fate has been sealed.

All arguments to defend an HJ will be reduced to rubble.

Juststeve

Toto:

Please list for me the other figures from ancient history whose very existence is being currently questioned on FRDB. There are scores of threads currently on this site arguing that Jesus never existed. How many for other figures?

Steve

No Robots

Even just a comparison with someone like Hillel would be a start.

aa5874

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!! It is NOT necessary to examine the existence or non-existence of other characters to determine if a character described as the Child of the Holy Ghost existed.

MrMacSon

The so-called "main-stream scholars" are largely theologians who do not seem to have applied, or do not want to apply, standard historical methods to theological characters like alleged Jesus the Christ, and His alleged principal 'supporting' proponents - Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke & John.

These historical methods include proper attribution of source-type, context, etc.

The threads in this section are about the Bible and its characters. You may need to go elsewhere for discussion of non-Biblical characters.