diana

What Vork said.

There was a time that all "major universities" (drop the name of the Ivy League university of your choice here) taught that the universe revolved around the earth, as well. Didn't make it so. It just made it excommunicable heresy to claim otherwise.

In modern times, no one has a problem admitting Galileo was onto something. We now have a new unspeakable heresy: admitting there is no reliable support for the historicity of Jesus.

Lessee. Off the top of my head: we have his diary, as well as (I imagine) charters from Isabella. We have recorded stories from members of the tribes of natives he slaughtered in his search for gold. Seems like there are journals written by his fellow seamen, as well.

We also have "legends" that sprang up around him to make the whole thing more romantic. The legends--such as how he died a pauper and how his goals were the noble spread of Christianity--can be debunked using the actual information we have of him from the extant sources.

"History" isn't something we accept because it's a good story or even a story you want to believe for whatever reason. It is information we have reason to believe, as it fits into what we know of a given time period, is supported by archaeology, is consistent with the known customs of the cultures in which it was said to have occurred, and preferably corroborated through unbiased sources. The stories of Jesus simply don't fit the bill, then they make it worse by claiming huge non-events such as Herod's slaughter of the innocents which (inexplicably) is not mentioned outside of the bible.

The "mainstream" has a habit of dictating what is acceptable and what is not, then conducting research to confirm the predetermined conclusion.

The "mainstream" has declared questioning the historicity of Jesus is off limits, period, and thus scoffs at those who say, "But...there's no extrabiblical corroboration! Am I the only one who sees something fishy here?" In my experience, the mainstream quickly turn its guns on the honest questioner.

d

shamrockhoax

Because I want to know whether or not there is any truth to his existance. If he did exist, I don't believe him to be the son of God and definately don't believe he performed those 'miracles'.

Why does it matter to you that I want to know if he existed?

Toto

How about Drew University? BIBST 189 - JESUS: HISTORY OR MYTH? taught by Darrell Doughty treats the question as an open one, up for discussion.

Clivedurdle

Doughty possibly needs to update the bit about the Demoniac! He doesn't relate "legion" to Roman legions! Do NT profs use IIDB as a source?

Amaleq13

I've read the book and I found little to recommend it. He wasted far too much time having the scholars knock down strawman arguments nobody actually holds and neglected to follow up on the many instances of uncertainty in their replies. In other words, I found his work to be a sham of an attempt to objectively consider the evidence. IMO it is only a thinly disguised reinforcement of already existing faith.

As has already been pointed out, this does nothing to establish the historicity of Jesus.

Not if the "food" is information relevant to the historicity of Jesus. In that case, you are the one likely to starve by ignoring it in favor of unsubstantiated assumptions.

jonesg

Its spiritual nourishment for the soul.
Get some of that and you won't give a flyin squirrel about all the arguments.

Mageth

What is this, the "chicken soup" argument?

Apparently, that soup is a drug that inhibits your capacity to think.

Smoke some grass instead; then you really wouldn't give a shit.

show_no_mercy

I can take powerful hallucinogens and have the same results. It's just that religion doesn't really cost as much as drugs.

diana

If I understand you, you're saying you don't care whether Jesus is a factual historical character. Is this correct?

d

gregor

Oh contrar - s n mercy; religion is infinitely more expensive than drugs.