Zeichman

Despite the fact that I agree with the consensus, stating the consensus is not an argument for it (as Goodacre and Turton both say with some frequency).

Also: I think "overwhelming" is an understatement.

NOGO

This to me is the proof that Christianity did not start with the man Jesus.
This does not prove that Jesus did not exist but it does show that the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist. In other words the Godpel Jesus was fabricated from scriptures. And since interpretation of scriptures is not a precise science then you have disagreements right from the start.

youngalexander

Since my recent conversion to Pastafarianism (er, no, that occured at E/C) The Mythical Jesus position, I have occasionaly slipped it into the conversation. Mind you, it pays to pick the appropriate moment.

Tends to be a bit of a conversation stopper I find. My Xian friends look at me with a knowing air and just assume that it is another athiestic wank. Curiously the most aggressive reaction comes from non-believers. They tend to treat you as if you had just announced that 'I am an alien from the Andromeda system' or such like.

Mind you, you cannot just barge in and mutter, 'By the way, I have recently discovered that Jesus of Nazerath never existed'. That is some sort of metaphysical assertion. I am always careful to couch it in terms of the 'balance of probabilities, given the historical evidence'. That's generally enough to make their eyes glaze from the getgo!

The problem is of course that almost no one has examined the evidence and would not know where to begin to do so.

Another good one to try is: Muhammad was a brigand and a bandit and generally of low character whose only possible redeeming feature is the very real possibility that he never existed.
Tends to go down a treat amongst Muslims, but is likely to earn you a fatwa (or was that a fatlip).

youngalexander

While the questions that you raise are certainly associated with the topic of the OP, they are not the same. It is perfectly possible to accept a MJ and a BBC (Big Bang Christianity). True, Doherty does not do this, but his is not the only view of the matter. We had much discussion of this in the Rebuttal to Doherty thread where I offered these comments: Speaking of Rebuttals

The main point is that the questions HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC are entirely independent.


I would like very much to concur with this point. It is always incumbent upon the claimants to make the case. Not only is this the correct skeptical methodology, but also a matter of shear practicality. Afterall, who are we to know what strange version of Jesus they may have in mind.

Zeichman

Absolutely not. One has to provide a plausable explanation for the rise of Christianity with whichever Jesus they believe did or did not exist. Saying they're not related is a total cop out. They are as interdependent as anything can be. Whether one accepts this "Big Bang Christianity" or not, they must plausably provide an explanation for the origins of Christianity. Otherwise, it's pseudo-history at best and intentional misleading at worst.

I'll have to devote an afternoon to looking through the Doherty thread, as I have not done so yet.

youngalexander

An afternoon? LOL, I shall look forward to your deliberations!

mata leao

in for a dime in for a dollar, as Christians, we also argue that debunkers need to show a plausible reason for why so many people so quickly believed that Jesus died and arose from the dead, granted-an extraordinary claim, but also "GIVEN" that thousands of jews living in Jerusalem believed that "extraordinary" claim.

Toto

Christians like to argue this, but in fact we have no good evidence of any of these thousands of Jews living in Jerusalem from contemporary documents. We only really have evidence that one or two centuries later some Christians claimed that some people in Jerusalem (or Galilee) believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

And somehow Christians have no good explanation for why the entire population of Jerusalem was not converted by these extraordinary events, and why Christianity remained a small, marginal movement for several centuries.

mata leao

toto, you say we have no good evidence. We have evidence...what is not good about it? We have churches spreading like wildfire from Jerusalem out to the far reaches of palestine and then into the Roman empire.We have Roman soldiers converting to Christianity before the diaspora. We have an active correspondence among hundreds of Christians making references to many other churches. Not bad for a religion despised by orthodox jews who had power and despised by the Romans who had the army. Atheism remains a small, marginal movement after many many centuries , in spite of modern commmunication!

Vorkosigan

Thanks for the reminder. Let us know the methodological basis for that belief, will ya?

Vorkosigan