Minimalist

Yeah, Jon, and to reiterate my original point, I can never be sure what anyone means when they refer to a HJ. I know fundies who insist that it means that every line in the gospels is literally true....no matter how many times they contradict each other, and then there are more rational people who downgrade HJ to a wandering teacher who got himself killed.
This bunch insists that there is a real person behind the myths which were embellished later on.

The problem is that this last HJ is just as mythical as the MJ I see. It does not matter if there was an HJ as long as the deeds attributable to him are myths.

I will read Ehrman's book and as someone noted above I am sure it will cause me to lower my estimation of Ehrman for doubling-down on a losing proposition.

Adam

I don't quite understand you, Minimalist. I have been promoting my Gospel According to the Atheists as in my Post #555 (as corrected in #561, in which the bold should read "Luke 22:1-38" in both places) in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306983&page=23

In it I do not present every line of the gospels is true nor even every line in my proposed text based on Proto-Luke and the Passion Narrative (Johannine source). But since it does constitute a full gospel, it's far more than an HJ whose teachings got himself killed.

Do you mean that a meaningful HJ would have to include myths that violate natural laws? If you mean that, then my larger thesis in Gospel Eyewitnesses would give you an HJ that does supernatural things. My original presentation gave seven eyewitnesses,
three of whom I could render presentable to FRDB as Gospel According to the Atheists.
For the fuller presentation, see my posts there #1, 18, 34, 52, 132, 144,and 170. The latter encompasses 85% of Mark, all of Luke except chapters 1 and 2, and almost all of John.

EarlDoherty

And why would you think that he did?

No I don't.

Earl Doherty

Grog

The big problem is there is no evidence that the HJ lived. The Jesus to Christ hypothesis from the beginning is based on a false reading of the evidence. It reads the evidence in the Gospels from Mark to John and sees myth development. However, it ignores evidence outside the canonical gospels that doesn't fit the Jesus to Christ hypothesis. For example, Paul. Paul is a "paradox" to the J2C hypothesis, and requires a great deal of ad hoc explanation to fit into the scheme. The single best piece of early Christian evidence does not support the hypothesis, yet it is still the prevalent one amongst liberal NT scholars.

James The Least

What is stunning about Ehrman is that he is supposedly a skeptic about Christianity. But when you read his books, what he is really skeptical about is inerrancy. He seems to think that if only we had the original manuscripts, then somehow inerrancy would be justifiable. But since we have only copies, we cannot know for sure what the original manuscripts said. Therefore we have to be "agnostic" about inerrancy.

In his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet book, I was amazed to read Ehrman describe a biblical passage as true because it appeared in more than one gospel and therefore was "multiple attested." :banghead:

I stopped taking him seriously after that. He's done some good work, but apparently he will never be able to fully give up the ghost of fundamentalism.

James The Least

Psalm 22 was recruited as a prophecy about the crucifixion: they pierce my hands and feet.

I'm not aware of a direct prophecy for the resurrection, but if he hadn't have been resurrected, there would not've been a reason to write the gospel.

I don't see how his death was an inconvenient truth. The glory of Christ's death and resurrection are virtually the sole topic in the epistles.

As for Luke's fictitious birth narrative, it is a puzzle. But it could be something as simple as rival groups claiming he was born in Nazareth, and Luke scurrying to find a prophecy to refute them and retain the Jesus copyright for the proto-orthodox church.

aa5874

First of all there is NO credible evidence outside the Canon for a human character called Jesus and secondly there is NO evidence outside the Canon that has been dated by paleography or scientific means that shows a character called Jesus was crucified in an heavenly realm.

Without any sources, it is the Christ to Jesus hypothesis that MUST rely on AD HOC explanations.

And, not only that, but those who advocate the Jesus to Christ hypothesis also have no credible sources and DEPEND on AD HOC inventions.

In the earliest Jesus story, the short-ending gMark, the Jesus character did publicly declare he was Christ and the Son of the Blessed on the same day before he was killed. However, gMark's Jesus was NOT human.

My claim does NOT require any ad hoc explanation just a simple reading of gMark itself.

Mark 3Mark 6Mark 14 So, without any ad hoc explanation we can can clearly see that there is NO Jesus to Christ or Christ to Jesus story in the earliest Jesus story.

gMark's Jesus was Christ, the Son of God that Walked on Water.

Now, please provide a source that SHOWS a Christ to Jesus story. I am not interested in AD HOC explanations just PRESENT a credible source of antiquity.

Solo

Hi James,
this is naive circular reasoning, analogous to : 'If a UFO did not land in Rockwell, N.M. in 1947, there would be no reason to have a UFO museum there'.

Best,
Jiri

James The Least

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying I believed Christ was resurrected. I meant from the epistle writers' and evangelists' point of view, even if there was no specific "prophecy" they could point to in the OT, their belief in a resurrection is clearly the raison d'tre for their putting quill to papyrus.

James The Least

I heard Robert M. Price on his "Bible Geek" podcast say that he heard that Ehrman just farmed out all the research on Mythicism to his students, and had them write summaries for him. He never actually read Price or Doherty.