MCalavera

Ok, got a good mythicist view that beats the parsimoniousness of HJ?

Show us what you got.

Let's start with the Nazareth bit again. Evidence for each point + simplicity.

Let's see it.

Sheshbazzar

Its not my job to teach you the 90% of Hebrew mysticism, cultural antecedents, and ancient word plays that you are unaware of.
You speak sibboleth and I speak shibboleth, and the distinction is lost on you. You have never learned to discern and -to put a difference between- the unclean and the clean, and between the profane and the Holy.

Perhaps, if you would give heartfelt prayers to the Elohim of the Hebrews, and walk as Abram walked, read the entire text of The Torah in Hebrew, you -might possibly- begin to apprehend what constitutes my position.
Until then, continue to grope about in the dark after you know not what.

MCalavera

So in other words, you best argument is puffing yourself up. I see.

Sheshbazzar

No, my best argument is the obvious fact that you do not know shit from Shinola.

Toto

Bart Ehrman is a former evangelical, operating in a profession that cannot afford to insult Christians too much. I think he does a good job, and I look forward to reading what he has to say about the historicity of Jesus when he finally gets around to writing on that topic.

There are times when the consensus of experts is valuable - when the experts are truly expert and have invested the time in understanding the issues, and have debated the details among themselves.

This does not describe the process by which most scholars have decided that there was a historical Jesus at the origins of Christianity.

If the consensus is not derived from this sort of process, it might be better described as the conventional wisdom - the product of group-think, ripe for being overturned.

aa5874

There is no consensus among experts that there was an HJ. EXPERTS CANNOT AGREE on the nature of NT Jesus.

The Consensus among Experts is that there is little or nothing known of an historical Jesus and the sources that mention Jesus are historically UNRELIABLE.

Nothing has changed for the LAST 1800 years.

Celsus in his "True Discourse" did NOT present any historical sources to argue against those who claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost based on "Against Celsus".

MCalavera

It isn't just Bart Ehrman, though. There are other experts who are not Christians who agree, and the consensus is that between Christian and non-Christian experts alike.

aa, yes, there is. Jesus Seminar is full of experts with the consensus that it was a historical Jesus.

gurugeorge

Very few non-Christian experts (i.e. actual historians) have looked into it. And amongst the Christian experts, there is no agreement, the experts have varying ideas of who the supposed historical Jesus was.

The only agreement between all of them would be that he lived, and that he was crucified.

You'd think you'd get more than that, wouldn't you, as a result of centuries of "sifting historical gleanings" from the texts? :Cheeky:

MCalavera

Scholars and experts are still human beings. Them discussing things as scholars and experts and having a common consensus is different from each of them having his own opinions/interpretations of things.

The former requires strict honest work as a scholar; the latter just speculating and having an opinion.

Contrary to what mythicists may think about historicists, it's pretty hard to extract the most accurate details from the ancient texts. We just can somehow be certain that there was (at least quite likely) a historical Jesus behind the texts due to various factors and criteria.

mountainman

In any other words you believe Luke and John (the authors) were not trying to mislead their readers into thinking their writings were to be treated as something different from what they claimed they should be treated.

Which is simply saying that you believe in Luke and John.

Why dont you just say "I believe in the NT stories" and be done with it?