ApostateAbe

It seemed to be the separation between the mythicist explanations and the evidence, and the unity between the mythicist explanations and the wishful thinking, that left mythicism in the academic gutters. When Albert Schweitzer wrote The Quest of the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), he ranted against many Jesus theories of the time, and the mythicist Jesuses were among them. On pages 435-436, he wrote:

An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis.

So, like so many other debate victories, there isn't a single killer argument, but it is an accumulation of good arguments against a losing theory and bad arguments in favor it. If there is a primary winning argument, then it is the point that Albert Schweitzer's theory--Jesus as the apocalyptic prophet--powerfully explained the early doomsday prophecies, the deadlines, and the subsequent embarrassments reflected in the New Testament texts. The other Jesus theories merely awkwardly accommodated them, including the mythicist theories.

jgoodguy

IMHO Due to the lack of any substantial evidence, there is no killer argument. There could have always been a ' apocalyptic prophet' who started a movement (or merged with other groups) that eventually became Christianity, but mythology, politics and time has all but obscured him. On the other side, an argument from silence is always chancy but set against the larger silence of document of that time is never going to be a sure thing. Showing the similarities between Christianity and other religious beliefs is interesting but there are enough differences to keep it from becoming a sure thing. Because there are emotional issues involved, a dispassionate viewpoint is not likely to be achieved. Sun Tzu is a possible example where a possible historical figure's legacy was obscured by later works.

ApostateAbe

"...but mythology, politics and time has all but obscured him." There are questionable figures of history where this would be so, such as Daniel, King David, King Solomon, Moses, Sun Tzu, Buddha, and so on. If the evidence shows that Jesus was not completely lost to myth, then we need to take that evidence seriously, not simply close our eyes and have faith that everything about Jesus is lost, nor should we be creatively imagining hypotheses that makes that position legit. We really do have evidence in the early Christian writings that is powerfully explained with only a certain profile of a historical Jesus. I think we need to be serious about the evidence--the contents of the myths, the silence, all of it.

aa5874

Even Scholars have ADMITTED that HJ is LOST. HJ is a PRESUMPTION.


Again, you just keep on spreading PROPAGANDA for HJ.

There is ZERO powerful evidence for HJ or else YOU would have used it.

No Scholar spread such PROPAGANDA.

If there was POWERFUL evidence for HJ from antiquity ALL HJ Scholars would have used it.

NONE have used a single shred of credible evidence from Christian writings.

It has been ALREADY been EXPOSED that there is NOTHING credible for HJ from sources of antiquity.

dog-on

Now Abe, all you need to do is jump the canyon between the prophesies, embarrassments , deadlines and seemingly historical mythical cult leaders to therefore Jesus...

Or do you think a presupposition is enough to power your rocket bike?

ApostateAbe

I presuppose in my argument (of the pattern of myths of doomsday cult leaders) that the contents of the New Testament reflect early Christian myths that Christians believed. That is the prima facie reality that almost all of us accept, except maybe those who somehow think that the gospels were based on fictional entertainment, in which case my argument would not work. If anyone has that or any other way of interpreting the evidence, then please put it on the table and we will see how well it competes.

dockeen

My answer based on experience to the "main stream" question is that I really don't
think so. I think the vast majority of people I see on a daily basis (who are xtians)
take for granted an historical jesus, and that M,M,L,J were written by eye witnesses,
and even that the whole xmas story is historical.

aa5874

Well, other people can also state that your opinion is worthless or that Bart Ehrman's opinion is worthless.

But, regardless of whose opinion is claimed to be worthless Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1.1-4 and Galatians 1.1-12 will NOT MAGICALLY disappear.

Jesus was described as the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Those are only a small part of the POWERFUL WRITTEN EVIDENCE of MYTH JESUS.

HJ is ALL PROPAGANDA.

The MYTH JESUS theory is POWERFUL.

MYTH Jesus is the FATHER of HJ.

HJ is the PRODUCTION of MYTH Jesus.

They are ALL from the very same SOURCE.

Mt 1:18 - This is EXTREMELY POWERFUL WRITTEN EVIDENCE of MYTHOLOGY which is just like Marcion's MYTH fables of the Phantom who came from heaven DIRECTLY to Capernaum WITHOUT Birth and Flesh.

dog-on

Acceptable. Now how do you get from this to therefore Jesus?

ApostateAbe

OK, sure. Here is my argument:

1. The synoptic gospels directly reflect ancient Christian myth of Jesus as a human doomsday cult leader (among a few other things).
2. All of the other myths telling of a reputedly-human doomsday cult leader seem to be based on an actual-human doomsday cult leader of the same rough profile as the character in the myth.
3. Therefore, it is highly probable that the myth of Jesus was based on an actual-human doomsday cult leader of the same rough profile as the character of Jesus in the myths.

Again, this argument does not work for those who think that the relevant early Christian writings are really entertaining fables or whatever instead of myths that Christians believed. Different arguments would be required to show the improbabilities of such claims.