aa5874

There is no evidence at all for Jesus in Philo. And in Josephus there is a forgery where Jesus Christ rose from the dead after the third day.

Where is the overwhelming evidence for Jesus of the NT as just a man?

spamandham

In fairness, the only scholars who have actually tackled the idea of the very existence of these men head on are the radicals, and they have concluded these men are probably legendary or constructed. For example, Detering argues that there was no historical Paul per se, but that the character is loosely modelled after Simon Magus.

Mainstream scholars almost universally start by assuming there is a historical Peter, a historical Paul, and a historical Jesus, that are recognizable within the stories.

The Jesus project is perhaps going to finally address this shortfall.

steve_bnk

The problem with that kind of scholarship is that I'd expect you'd find a wide range of speculation. Creatioinists have no trouble gathering a group of credentialed scientists to make the case against evolution and for creationism.

The lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. It can not be proven on either side to a certainty.

spamandham

The point is, that expert concensus isn't very compelling if it isn't based on analysis.

In the case of the historicity of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, the consensus is not based on analysis. The only analysis that has been done thus far (well, as far as I'm aware and please correct me if I'm wrong) has been done by 'radicals' (who are nonetheless well qualified in a scholarly sense), and has come to the conclusion that these men did not exist per se.

As a layman, I tend to accept the analysis of a minority of qualified scholars over the shooting from the hip of the majority of qualified scholars. But that's just me. Each of us has our own perspective of what methods work best.

But like I said, perhaps the Jesus project will finally address this issue head on in the mainstream, so it can be put to bed. Even, "well, we just don't know" would be preferred over opinion polls.

steve_bnk

IMO the arguments on both sides can only end up being equaly cirumstantial. Some seem to be equaly obsessed with a falsification as those who are believers in JC.

steve_bnk

I found two Jesus Projects.

The first is obviously Christatin oriented. On The second my first impression is another Discovery Institute which masks creationism under the mask of a 'scientific think tank' staffed by scientists.

------------------
Welcome to the
THINKJESUS
PROJECT

THINK JESUS PROJECT has been called to fully utilize the possibilities of the mainstream media for the Glory of Jesus Christ, and to let America know, once again, that it was created “One Nation Under God”, and still is.
-------------------------

The Jesus Project
The Jesus Project (TJP) is a research initiative of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, the eldest of the research divisions of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York.
The non-confessional study of religion has been a core activity of CFI and CSER since 1983, when "the critical study of religion from a scientific viewpoint" was identified as part of the remit of CFI's mission.

Toto

Thread on the Jesus Project of which we speak

This is nothing like the Discovery Institute.

delusional

I'm not going to waste much more time on this:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

dog-on

Probably wise, as your position is pretty much bunk...

matthijs

None of these quotes seem to address the issue. Howard Marshall, Robert Van Voorst, and Graham Stanton, all wave their hands and appeal to majority opinion. Both Michael Grant and Will Durant attack a straw-man augment, and don't seem to be familiar with the theory they're debunking.

Rudolf Bultmann sums up the basic attitude with this:
You've shown that most scholars are agreed on the HJ hypothesis, but you've also inadvertently shown that they aren't engaging the opposing arguments. You said that the consensus is due to "overwhelming" evidence, but the quotes you supplied do not present evidence for this, they present arguments from incredulity and general hand-waving.

Elske.