judge

There are some similarities.
Both make pretty lame attempts to explain away evidence they dont like, and neither appear in peer reviewed journals.

Both are fringe theories. Both have just the odd Phd. who supports them.

Toto

There are important differences. In particular, there is no hard evidence for a historical Jesus that needs to be explained away.

McGrath also makes lame attempts to explain away evidence that he does not like, and has self published his books.

I have pointed out that people who believe in a historical Jesus are more like creationists than are mythicists, but they don't appreciate the comparison.

neilgodfrey

Since drawing attention to McGrath's failure to inform readers what Doherty's arguments are, McG has sprinkled his chapter 4 review with several references to what Doherty "seems" to say. All he is doing is reminding everyone of Doherty's conclusions and coupling them with a few straw man "seems", as I've tried to point out in my review of his chapter 4 review.

judge

Who gives a toss about McGrath though? Not me.

Possibly they were upset (if your imaginings were true) by your equating your opinions with facts though.
You claim you "pointed something out" but in this instance your "pointing something out" is merely stating your opinion, not pointing out facts or anything. You have an opinon that people who believe jebus was historical are more like creationists than mythers are.
Yet instead of outlining an opinion, you (rather pompously it seems) "point this out to people". then you seem to imagine they are upset by some facts.
But you seem confused as then you seem to eqaute this with making a comparison also.

Were you pointing out facts making a comparison or stating an opinion?

bacht

Exactly. The HJ argument relies on tradition and weak logic. It is anti-scientific in its approach.

The various MJ scenarios allow much more room for nuanced analysis of contemporary political, cultural and social conditions. Some will include a "real" founder but this isn't necessary to explain the outcome (the rise of catholicism)

jgoodguy

Unlike the Gospel Jesus folks or the various theist based creationists , the HJers do not depend on supernatural devices. They do require a buy in via methodologies that a HJ existed and can be determined by textual analysis of the gospels applying naturalistic assumptions. Without that buy in there is no evidence to analyze. OTOH you have to buy in to that evidence exists in order to analyze the JM side and apply a different set of methodologies.

The rise of the orthodox view is simply that the Bishop of Rome, an orthodox advocate, was needed as a political ally in a civil war. Without that they would be just one of competing flavors of a minority religion.

There is a good case to be made that the orthodox also succeeded because of better organization, the better organization was hierarchical in nature, the hierarchy needed credibility, Apostolic succession provided that credibility and a HJ is needed for Apostolic succession. That leaves the question did the orthodox make a historical tradition where one did not exist or use an existing historical tradition.

aa5874

What you say about the JM position is NOT really accurate. If HJers can apply naturalistic assumptions to the Gospels then it MUST be obvious that there is DATA to analyze.

It is the very same DATA that is ANALYZED by HJers that is used by MJers.

Once the Gospels are used as EVIDENCE then that EVIDENCE is EQUALLY applicable for analysis by any side.

The Gospels speak for themselves just like any artifact or an archaeological find from antiquity.

The Gospels or the Gospels as found in the Extant Codices CANNOT be ALTERED. They MUST be LEFT EXACTLY as found and they CLEARLY described a MYTH character called Jesus Christ, God's Own Son, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Child of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

This is how the conception of Jesus Christ is described in one of the earliest Extant Codices.

Matthew 1.18 But, analysis of the pertinent documents of antiquity show that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that there was ever a Bishop of Rome called the Apostle Peter at ANY TIME BEFORE or AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

There is ZERO credible corroborative source for Jesus, his 12 apostles, and "Paul".

The Jesus story with the invented character called Apostle Peter, the supposed bishop of Rome, appears to have been fabricated as an answer to the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

jgoodguy

1. You apparently agree with me that in order to discuss and analyze evidence either as a JMer or HJer, one has to presuppose there is evidence to be found and only the proper naturalistic filter(methodology) has to be applied to find that evidence.

2. I was speaking of Miltiades not Peter.

aa5874

But this is what you wrote initially.

HJers are the ones who ACTUALLY PRESUPPOSE there is evidence from antiquity for HJ. It is HJers who PRESUPPOSE the Gospels contain evidence of an historical Jesus.

The claim by HJers that HJ was a mere man is a NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTION or PRESUMPTION.

The Gospels claim Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended and that is NOT a PRESUMPTION or a "naturalistic assumption, it can be ACTUALLY found in the Canon of the Church.

Such ACTUAL written statements are enough to argue that Jesus of the NT was MYTH when HJers can ONLY ASSUME or PRESUME there may be evidence for HJ.

jgoodguy

"There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth. At least that's the current state of the evidence as I see it. " Robert M. Price