Clivedurdle

A few years ago, a former Bishop of Durham - David Jenkin? - got into trouble for doubting the virgin birth.

There was that counting system applied to them about how probably true they are, and which bits are more likely to have happened.

Is there not a logical error here? Assuming there is anything to retrieve, that there is a solid ground of fact?

Historicism looks like an apologist assumption.

Theophage

Wrong forum. Can I get a mod in here?

Non-praying Mantis

Sure thing, moving thread to BC&H

NPM, E/C Mod

Cheerful Charlie

There were lots like Jesus so he probably existed. He probably was a self elected messiah of some sort, got execurted for being considered a dangerous pest. He most assuredly came from Galilee, and was not a descendent of David. This I suspect is about 95% sure. Not much else is.

I suspect that the more skeptical of the Jesus seminar experts are about right on this.

He was executed, did not arise, was not buried.That is why the resurrection tales all violently disagree. That is myth based on rumor and wishful thinking.

Most tales seem to indicate Jesus first appeared to the women and the apostles did not believe in him. I suspect something like hypnogogic, waking dreams of Jesus by anguished women followers of Jesus. That gave rise to rumors of a risen Christ. Such waking dreams are very common among mourning people, and sometimes are very vivid. These gave rise to confused rumors that lead to the tales of the resurrection in garbled and mythologized form.

http://chicagoiands.org/Induction_of_ADCs_html
Spontaneous ADCs

From here on out, who knows?

From ancient times, such dreams gave rise to ideas such as lares and pentitates among the Romans of Jesus' time. Spirits of dead parents and ancestors, some good, some pests.

This gave rise of tales like the biblical witch of Endor, people alive in an after life, sheol or Egyptian Western Lands. Visions of Virgin Mary and saints of the middle ages, the impetous for Victorian era mediums and communication with the dead.

And tales of Jesus in magic disguise moving among his disciples.Mary Magdalene mistaking Jesus for a gardener. Warped tales fouth hand
by those who did not know of such phenomenon.

We are in to speculation here, but I think reasonable speculation. Something similar happened to Saul/Paul.

CC

aa5874

Based on Against Heresies, there were three basic concepts of the son of God. There was the god only version, the god-man version and the man only version.

The authors of the Gospels and the early church fathers promoted the god-man Jesus. In order to satisfy this version of the god-man Jesus, it must be established or believed to be true that this god-man is the seed of the Holy Ghost, and his mother, a virgin, did not have sexual intercourse at all before the god-man was born, and thirdly, this god-man's body is not in any grave. He ascended to heaven.

The authors of the Gospels and the early church fathers must have been satisfied that these conditions were met and promoted this god-man concept.

This god-man concept is clearly mythical and legendary when compared to known accepted mythical figures.

never been there

After visiting Ephesus, I sent a picture of the big amphitheatre to some Christians I know as a nice gesture - here's the spot where Paul actually preached.

The more fundamentalist of them gave very perfunctory thanks. I suspect that I inadvertently reminded them that the reasonable historicity of one small slice of the Bible points out the seriously dubious historicity of the rest.

Doug Shaver

I agree that it's an assumption. But if by "apologist" you mean "Christian apologist," they aren't the only ones making it.

scott gray

"He was executed, did not arise, was not buried.That is why the resurrection tales all violently disagree. That is myth based on rumor and wishful thinking."

there is a fascinating debate between wm craig and bart ehrman about the historicity of jesus' resurrection here:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments...surrdebate.htm

that brings up important points about historical methodology: high corroboration, low collaboration, early documents.

and it's interesting you use the word 'myth,' because it is indeed about mythical meaning, not actual historical fact. the resurrection story, while not historically true, is rich with meaning. even for a total non-believer, it contains a rich metaphor about one type of conversion--dying to a way of knowing, tomb-time (thinking, thinking, thinking), and rising to a new understanding. it needn't be about 'wishful thinking.' it can be about something richer.