J-D

But I'm not discussing the resurrection. I'm discussing whether it's possible that the canonical Gospels contain anything which has value as historical evidence. If you only want to discuss the resurrection and so don't want to discuss what I'm discussing, then you don't have to.

TimBowe

There are many views of the historical Jesus, Ehrman argues that Jesus can be best understood as a "first-century Jewish apocalypticist...who fully expected that the history of the world as he knew it was going to come to a screeching halt and that God was going to overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment."

badger3k

Seriously, Tim, did you go to high school with Bart? Your bizarre love affair with him is clouding your mind. Do you actually read anybody else? What other biblical scholars have you read?

Quoting one scholar is an appeal to authority or a cry for help, neither of which make a good argument. If you want, I can copy down quotes from others who do not agree with that. Not sure what that will do, since it is pretty meaningless, but if that is all you are going to do, why bother?

TimBowe

Seriously no one cares about the others who do not agree with that. The others are wrong, Ehrman and Albert Schweitzer both thought that Jesus was a jewish apocalypticist.

TimBowe

Lets hear from all the great others, who have continued to get it wrong consistently for decades.

J-D

I have to agree with everybody else, TimBowe, that you don't build any sort of case to support your views by just repeating them.

aa5874

The OP is about the resurrection. The historical Jesus is irrelevant when discussing the resurrection.

aa5874

You must mean "Ehrman speculates or guesses that Jesus can be best understood as a first century apocalypticist", once you admit that there are many views of the historical Jesus.

J-D

The OP is not primarily about the resurrection. It's primarily about finding a plausible explanation for the origin of the text. As I said in my first post to the thread, an explanation which says there actually was a resurrection is not plausible, so a variety of explanations are more plausible than that.

aa5874

In antiquity, a resurrection was plausible, and so too were MYTHS. People believed Jesus resurrected in antiquity. People believed mythical characters did exist just as they believed Marcion's Phantom Jesus existed.

Based on the Church writers, the resurrection may be as plausible as the crucifixion or the death of Jesus. A plausible event in the NT is not directly related to its veracity or historicity.

I hope it is noted that it is extremely plausible that Jesus did not exist, and that in antiquity it was plausible that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.