Gregg

What's "faulty" about # 2? And how is it "popular?"

Many, many millions of people believe Jesus resurrected and ascended.

Many, many millions of people believe that Jesus was at least historical.

Only a tiny fraction of those numbers believe that Jesus began as an entirely mythic figure.

There are atheists on these boards who are vociferous opponents of the idea that Jesus started as a myth.

The JM thesis is anything but "popular."

RAFH

You have citations of the above?

I know there was a big to do a few years back about an ossuary with the name James on it, but it was determined to be a fraud and I believe prosecution was sucessful.

I don't recall any recently found ossuaries attributed to a Jesus.

RAFH

I don't know how they would ascertain it was genuine. Who would they do the DNA comparison with?

I believe the best that could be hoped for is establishing it was a genuine burial from the 1st century and the items are all genuine 1st century. Unless, of course, they uncover some very convincing evidence of a nature that would establish Jesusness. I can't even imagine what that would be.

ApostateAbe

I don't exactly how popular the Jesus myth proposition is, but it seems to be way more popular than it should be, especially among atheist activists (perhaps not among atheists generally). The God Who Wasn't There seems to very popular among us. There was an atheist in Italy who filed a lawsuit against a priest for promoting the hoax that Jesus existed.

ApostateAbe

DNA would only help to establish that they are all truly related to each other, it wouldn't make the connection to Jesus. The connection to Jesus would be the constellation of names. They were popular names in the time and place, but there would be an extremely limited number of Josephs who married Marys who had a son named Jesus.

Gregg

I disagree; it should be far more popular than it is. I am not an "atheist activist" by any means; I accept the JM thesis advanced by Earl Doherty simply because it fits the evidence and makes sense. It's by no means a "slam dunk" like evolution, but it's hardly nonsense, like these agenda-driven theories that claim Christianity was invented by Constantine.

I am not a person who jumps on outlandish theories because they suit my presumptions and biases, and I have rejected other JM hypotheses (as well as numerous HJ hypotheses) before I encountered Doherty's thesis.

Here's a suggestion; go to www.jesuspuzzle.org and just take the time to read it through. Don't just read the basic argument ... look the supplementary articles and other material as well. Then come back and tell me if you still think only an "atheist activist" with an anti-Christian agenda would find Doherty's case persuasive.

Gregg

I thought this burial cave had been discovered quite a few years ago and had already been determined to be a hoax of some kind. I know the ossuary was determined to be a hoax.

RAFH

However, since there is no way to establish how many Josephs married to Marys had Jesus', there's no way to determine how common or uncommon this circumstance may be. Which puts the situation back to speculation. Could be it was very common for Josephs married to Marys to name their kids Jesus. Or maybe it was very uncommon. Nobody knows and there's no way to ascertain that fact, without which, the entire probability becomes speculation.

Now, if a genuine inscription was found stating "This is Joseph of Bethlehem, who married Mary, virgin mother of Jesus Son of God, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and then was resurrected." well, you'd have something. Somehow I suspect such an inscription hasn't and isn't going to be found.

notapadawan

Sounds like the same old worthless drivel that makes Templar Stories possible.

GakuseiDon

There is a final step though Gregg. That is to investigate the sources that Doherty refers to, to see if his analysis matches the evidence that we do have.