Chaucer

-- which negation is precisely what historical Jesus research has done -- thanks for helping to remind us of this!

And I'm sometimes struck by the degree to which former fundamentalists, like Price et al, however trained in certain aspects of this research some may be, become mythicists. It's sometimes occurred to me that their former fundamentalist methodology of approaching Jesus as primarily divine has merely mutated in another direction through mythicism.

Chaucer

bacht

Really? If I walk into a library or bookstore in the West will I find material that denies the historical existence of Jesus the Nazarene, or will I find material that assumes this as a fact beyond disproof? If I walk into a museum or art gallery in the West will I find artifacts that ignore the Galilean messiah, or works that place him squarely in space and time on this earth in human history?

Since the Enlightenment all religious doctrines have been questioned and largely rejected, not just Christianity. Of course all traditions are now viewed suspiciously in the post-modern millenium, but Christianity is just one of multiple beliefs dismissed as ignorant pre-modern claptrap.

If Christ began as an invisible universal saviour revealed in Jewish scripture then what's the problem?

Toto

I think that is the majority position here, but you walked with such a big chip on your shoulder and so many assumptions (and the need to dramatize them) that you never noticed.

spin

[]

Doug Shaver

Having no idea what you mean by "proof" in this context, I can neither agree nor disagree.

What I mean by "good case" for any historical proposition is a cogent demonstration that when all of the relevant evidence is considered, there is at least some reason to believe the proposition and no reason at all to doubt it. The key phrase here is all of the relevant evidence -- emphasis on all.

Chaucer

Oh, for goodness' sake, there are stories of Washington tossing a coin clean across the Delaware, of Lincoln doing ridiculously unlikely things with logs, and on and on. Do any of those tall tales put the historicity of either President in question?

Chaucer

spin

Doh! Did you read the bit about "all of the relevant evidence"? Obviously not.

Someone intervened in the past and led the revolutionary forces and someone was the first president of the USA, etc., etc. Do the same with your silly analogy.


spin

Chaucer

Doh right back at you. It's perfectly obvious that "all of the relevant evidence" is a reference to the supernatural baggage that the Gospels pile on top of Jesus's bio. It's precisely because of D. Shaver's turn of phrase that I cited some equally ridiculous fables associated with other historical figures. Neither those tall tales nor the Gospels' supernatural baggage furnish reason enough to doubt the historicity of either certain Presidents or the quartet of Solon/Gautama/Socrates/Jesus.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy

But if you strip away all of the "supernatural baggage" from Presidents you're still left with a highly three dimensional President. Stripping away all of the supernatural and obviously fictional claims about Jesus and all you're left with is some one-dimensional guy named Jesus got executed sometime in the first century.

Chaucer

And you're also left with dozens of sayings that not only appear in canonical texts but in non-Scriptural texts like Thomas as well.

Chaucer