maryhelena

Interesting......

aa5874

And this is found in the very same source.

There is really no good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed because if there was good historical sources HJers would have presented their sources a long long time ago.

Instead, HJers have always depended on the "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY."

This has been the fallacious mantra of HJers: "NO HISTORIAN, worth his salt, denies the historicity of Jesus."

Well, it is all over. The "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY" cannot work anymore.

There is no known historical source external of apologetic sources that can show there was a character called Jesus, the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, Lord and Saviour, the Creator, offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin who was believed to have walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and had the power to forgive the sins of mankind, abolish the Laws of God including circumcision during the time of Pilate and up to the time of Nero.

The prospect for Jesus is virtually ZERO.

From the same source.

What now is NOT a myth of the church with regards to Jesus?

What?

ApostateAbe

It is an informative and thoughtful blog posting, worth the time reading.

Zaphod

I wonder if they think an announcement by Biblical scholars that most if not all of story of JC is a falsehood might be a big deal to the billions of believers world-wide whose faith is based upon the belief that the opposite is true?

Is it possible (gasp) that this chummy secret is kept behind the ivied walls of academia because they would all lose their jobs if they actually announced what they all "know...already"?

Can they possible be so dense as to not understand "why it's such a big deal to mythers", or is such a statement intended to squelch debate and remove them from their responsibility to openly communicate what they know very well would be a pronouncement of apocalyptic proportions to the Church?

"Tech support!... I need Tech support!!" :devil1:

Toto

So everyone knows that "most of Jesus is a myth of the church" but "the thin possibility [that Jesus did not exist] cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory."

We're back to trying to extract history from mythology.

ApostateAbe

Exactly right. We really have no choice but to do so, and it is sort of a relief to see Hoffman acknowledge that reality. It mythicists want to make a case that Jesus never existed, then they are going to have to find the history behind the mythology of the earliest Christian writings, the same way the historicists must do. If you simply take a postmodernist or minimalist (or whatever you would like me to call it) attitude that almost no history can be discerned from the myth, then you have only reached an intellectual dead end. The way forward is to evaluate competing theories based on what explains the evidence the best. Here is Hoffman's full statement:

In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not. The thin possibility cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory, anymore than the uncertainty of who the Scythians were proves that Herodotus made them up. I am of one mind with April DeConick when I assay the work of the “mythers”–the born again pre-committed–a term I don’t like very much, but in an odd way one that points to the hollowness of many of the non-historicity arguments.

Steven Carr

it is an intellectual dead end to claim that Jack and the Beanstalk is not history, until you can tell us how the story came into existence.

Who wrote it? Why did he write it?

Until then, Jack and the Beanstalk can no more be regarded as myth than the Gospels can.

Steven Carr

A possibility?

No way!

There is ZERO possibility that Josephus never wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.

That has been established by scholars.


There is ZERO possibility that the words from Matthew 1:16 in Ant. 20 are a Christian interpolation.

That has been established by scholars.

There is ZERO possibility that the 'brothers of the Lord' in 1 Corinthians 9 are not blood-relatives of Jesus.

That has been established by scholars.

Biblical scholars will not entertain the possibility of these things, and yet they are open-minded enough to state there is a possibility Jesus never existed.

How do they do that?

ApostateAbe

The evolution of Jack and the Beanstalk can actually be tracked through history and educated guesses can be made about its origins, including the motivations behind it. It is important that I said, "guesses." Nobody is claiming that you need absolutely certainty about how Christianity began. Jesus is not presumed to be historical any more than Jack and the Beanstalk is presumed to be originally mythical. We simply fit the most plausible hypothesis to the evidence that we have.

Steven Carr

so what is the most plausible hypothesis for Paul's claim that Jews could not be expected to have heard about Jesus if Christians had not been sent to preach about him?