sotto voce

Like doing as you would be done by, you mean? What a novel thought.

Solo

Perhaps, you are much less of a skeptic than you let on: I am unclear why a skeptic would not see one side's theories any more convoluted than the other's. Why should Doherty be seen as more unsound than Ehrman ? There is no more factual support for Doherty's supra-terrestrial crucifixion than for Ehrman's insistence that Paul was personally acquianted with Jesus' sibling.

Best,
Jiri

No Robots

Well, you could take the advice of Paul Feyerabend:

Methodology has by now become so crowded with empty sophistication that it is extremely difficult to perceive the simple errors at the basis. It is like fighting the hydra - cut off one ugly head, and eight formalizations take its place. In this situation the only answer is superficiality: when sophistication loses content then the only way of keeping in touch with reality is to be crude and superficial. This is what I intend to be.--“How to Defend Society Against Science”, / Paul Feyerabend. Scientific Revolutions, Oxford Readings in Philosophy, p. 158.

Or, you can take the advice of our Galilean master that you quote above.

Your choice. I know that I oscillate between the two.

sotto voce

So FRDB is henceforth to be crude and superficial. Scholarship now is mere phooey.

Grog

I can only tell you why this is important to me personally. If you are interested in that story, then let me know and I will relate that. I have been interested in it for a long time, though I only dabble here and there on the edges and haven't devoted my life to it.

It's a personal interest that has nothing to do with atheism or my hatred for Christianity (I don't hate Christianity!) or religion in general. I know that one is always looking for some reason for "deniers" to be "haters" but I generally don't fit that bill. I don't want to overturn western society or the values that presumptively are its foundations. I don't want to undermine Christianity. I have argued for a thoroughly spiritual Christ and that is the same Christ that early Christians worshipped. I have no problems with that whatsoever. I became interested in this topic as a matter of the history of Christian Origins.

Want more?

aa5874

Your claim is UTTERLY erroneous or mis-leading. You ought to know that there is a QUEST for an historical Jesus as we speak.

From since the time of the EARLIEST Jesus story as found in the Existing Codices people have believed Jesus was DIVINE--the Son of God with no known human father.

You ought to know that a DIVINE Jesus is NOT an historical Jesus.

Please do NOT manipulate the Strict meaning of the term "Historical Jesus".

An "Historical Jesus" specifically means a fully human Jesus with a human father and mother.

No Apologetic sources of antiquity have claimed or argued with supporting evidence that Jesus was fathered by a human being.

In fact, we have the complete reverse. It was the Skeptics, the Non-believers, that argued Jesus was human but WITHOUT a shred of evidence just like today.

For over 1600 years Supposed Believers of the Jesus stories ARGUED that Jesus was NON-historical that he was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost and was God the Creator.

You ought to know that an Apologetic source "On the Flesh of Christ" described in full that Jesus was of the seed of God and could NOT be of the seed of man.

Please OBSERVE the STRICT meaning of the Historical Jesus or else we will NOT get anywhere on BC&H.

You must know that people of antiquity BELIEVED the Holy Ghost, Angels and Adam were figures of history.

On the Flesh of Christ 1-18 Jesus was MERELY BELEIEVED to have existed. Jesus could ONLY be a Myth Fable for Christianity to make sense.

An Historical Jesus reduces Christianity to a most blatant known LIE.

It is NOT reasonable at all to expect that some ILLITERATE fishermen were able to make an obscure Jesus into a God by known lies.

Grog

Great post.

Grog

Does this prospect scare you? Are you worried that the downfall of an "HJ" will introduce novelties to our society that you won't like? As Toto pointed out, the historical Jesus, the man without the myth, is a recent invention. Western society trolled happily along without him (until the Age of Reason started to intrude on the paradise brought to Earth during the Middle Ages).

Whether or not Jesus walked the Earth for real as a member of the species homo sapien, ape blood pumping through his heart and all, should not matter to your FAITH in Jesus Christ as your heavenly intercessor. Does it matter if Jesus actually uttered the words "Do unto others" in front of an actual rabble of first century hippies (the equivalent thereof)? Or if this is a truth revealed to you in your heart from Jesus on high? To us in the 21st Century, we have the exact same relation to Jesus Christ, whether or not he traveled the dusty roads of Palestine 2000 years ago.

A question right back at you: Why does it matter so much to you?

aa5874

The claim that Jesus walked on water and resurrected was Plausible in antiquity and that is the Precise reason they were included in the Jesus story.

Those events made the character MORE credible as the Son of God to people of antiquity. If Jesus did NOT act like a God in gMark and was NOT recognised as Divine then we would HAVE NO Jesus cult.

gMark's Son of God was competing AGAINST other Myth Gods.

The author of gMark produce a most CREDIBLE and Plausible Son of God and other authors swallowed his story WHOLE.

The authors of the Long-Ending gMark [Interpolated gMark] and the author of gMatthew used virtually 100% perecent of gMark word-for-word.

gMark's Son of God story became the story that was MOST BELEIVED and was emulated by first THREE authors of the Earliest Jesus stories in the Canon.

Today's Christians may think gMark's Son of God is NOT Plausible or Credible but Christians 1600 years ago BELIEVED gMark's Son of God story was PERFECTLY TRUE.

Iskander

I wanted to know what deniers think, that’s all.