spamandham

It isn't a problem toward drawing a conclusion, it's a problem toward moving the scholarly concensus. Toto (I believe) is referring to the inability to convince Christians Jesus was a myth, because they do not approach the subject from an unbiased perspective - and since most Biblical scholars are Christians, a conclusion that might be forgone in the absense of modern Christianity, becomes an impossible hurdle.

The standards in this one particular field of history are not unbiased as they would be in an analysis of say, Apollonius or Asclepius. Christian scholars start from the presumption that Jesus was a real person, and require inordinate proof to move away from that. There isn't even a semblence of objectivity in that regard.

It's a huge problem for anyone unwilling to live with "I don't know".

thedistillers

No.

He was answering my post.

You should pay attention a little bit more.

bacht

I think the question of the historicity of Jesus is just as relevant as asking about Moses or Mohammed. These are people who changed history, or at least their followers did.

I have my own reasons for pursuing the mythicist perspective. There are many Christians in my family, some Evangelical. I myself went through this phase as a young man. Exploring this tradition is a way to understand myself.

Skeptics see a world full of naive faith in foolish things. The point of rationality and logic is to rise above ignorance and prejudice. Yes, atheists might be prejudiced against apologists, just as socialists might be prejudiced against free market capitalists. This isn't news.

One of my disappointments in university was discovering that so many academics waste time and energy on petty quarrels. If our best and brightest are prone to childish emotionalism, what should we think about the masses?

aa5874

So, Christian scholars are actually evangelists, missionaries and proselytes for a faith-based Jesus, they want to go to heaven and get eternal life. Evidence is not necessary, they are conducting a popularity contest.

" I don't know" and "did not" are all the product of lack of evidence.

But, I am unwilling to accept "I know he did" or "he did" when there is no evidence to support a human only apocalyptic preacher called Jesus.

spamandham

...a bit extreme. I think it's fair to say Christian scholars, as a group, are not unbiased in regard to Christian origins. Even the most unbiased still typically start from the presumption that Jesus was a real first century Jew who was crucified by Rome. The most trivial of evidence that supports that idea trumps all significant evidence to the contrary as a result.

A few snippets here and there from Paul that support an earthly crucified Jesus, are enough to counter the grossly obvious legendary nature of the gospel story. We can never get to the bottom with an approach like this.

Personally, I have no stake in whether or not there is a historical core to Jesus, but I do have a stake in an unbiased effort to ascertain that.

aa5874

So why is it extreme to state the facts. There are christians scholars who are basically lobbyists for Jesus, they are terrified to examine the obvious possibilty that Jesus was a myth. They may not even be able to entertain the thought.

Mark 16.15 Some christians scholars may believe that is their role even with a Phd.

How can information under scrutinity be corroboration of itself? When did the words of the letter writer become infallible, without error, and must be true? Not even the words of Jesus, the son of God, have been accepted by scholars without question and they have rejected over 70%.

Well, if that is the case, it is already known that no corroborative information about Jesus can be found by either Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheist, apologetics, American Indians, African tribes, or any person dead or alive from any country for the last 2000 years.

Jesus WAS A MYTH is a reasonable unbiased opinion.

Toto

I was repeating the words of thedistillers. I'm not sure what the questions marks are all about.

There are people who want to debunk Christianity - primarily former Christians who feel that they were hoodwinked into becoming Christians and want to save others from that fate. There are more people who want to debunk fundamentalism.

Christians who want to believe in a historical Jesus will continue to believe even if the possibility is very small. Even if you showed that the MJ hypothesis was a better explanation of the data with a probability of 99.9%, Christians would cling to that remaining .1% and shout that you haven't disproven their god.

Does that clarify the matter? It is hard to know what you mean by "???" at times.

As I have tried to explain before, the good fight against the evils that Christianity has done is better served with a historical Jesus. If there were any reason to believe in this individual, I would welcome it.

The reason I go on about apologists is that their arguments have polluted the air space. There is a constant repetition of arguments that have some superficial sound of rationality, without any real analysis.

The mills of academia grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. I see no reason to assume that the field of historical Jesus studies has reached a final conclusion.

You miss the point. Our society likes him/needs him, so there is no particular motivation to challenge his existence.

You are right - Jesus' existence is assumed.

You are arguing against yourself here. If academia is about the search for truth, are mythicists to be blamed for not yet having found the right strategy to get their point across? Doherty may have been naive in thinking that the power of his ideas and research alone would prevail.

.

So now you are a prophet? We'll see.

Maybe because I've read a lot of that scholarship. In some fields, such as physics, you can be sure that the process of peer review experimental verification will allow you to trust the results of experts. There is no such process in the field of NT scholarship.

Why can't you see this? </sarcasm>

30 years is not very long for this subject matter. In another generation, the reconstructed historical Jesus may be viewed as one of those 20th century fads that didn't pan out.

And, as I have tried to explain, this is not strictly a Christian opposition to the JM hypothesis. There are lots of humanists who want to believe that there was a self-sacrificing man who changed history through the power of unconditional love. It's a really powerful myth.

No Robots

You must mean evidence and not reason, because you give a very good reason.

Another excellent reason.

And I will offer up one more: operating on the premise that Christ was a real man but not a god provides individuals with a far more enriching and rewarding experience of life than any rival hypothesis. Surely, it is worth a try, especially in light of the fact that it is just as plausible as any other hypothesis?

aa5874

Another classic case of evangelism. "Try the human Jesus you will like him".

We are dealing with evidence here not with spiritual or emotional needs.

No Robots

Don't you like green eggs and ham?