J-D

If they think what they are saying is scientifically valid, how is it reprehensible to say so? If you disagree, you have your opportunity to voice that disagreement.

J-D

That doesn't really answer my question. Do you personally lean towards the view that there was a charismatic individual who made a powerful impression on his followers or do you personally lean the other way? And why?

J-D

I didn't use the expression 'perfectly well', but I would say that humanity got along without Copernicus, Plato, Einstein, Edison, and Mozart, which proves that their work wasn't 'absolutely vital'. That expression is an over-statement.

Sparrow

like this:
Child: Dad, why are there Christians?
Dad: Because there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ, the Savior of all mankind.
Child: How do we know Jesus really existed.
Dad: Because there are Christians.


J-D, since these responses are to my post 456, let me just wait until you catch up to 506 to say much more.

jjramsey

Boy, is that a gross strawman. The answer to the question "How do we know Jesus really existed" is more like this: Because the contents of the New Testament, especially the Gospels, are trivial to explain if there was a real first-century Galilean Jew from Nazareth named Jesus whose story was embellished, but are problematic to explain if this Jesus were made from whole cloth. That is a straightforward application of Occam's razor. The need for mythicists to explain away apparent references to Jesus' brothers is one example of this, though not the only one.

Sparrow

Thank you for interjecting without actually understanding the context of the discussion. :huh: I hope you don't actually think that's the basis for my beliefs. Although I portrayed a simplistic circular argument, I don't recall asserting that all HJers use such an argument for the foundations of their beliefs.

As far as the contents of the New Testament being trivial to explain, I find that assertion a bit simplistic. Especially if the divergence between the biographical and chronological information in the various books is ignored. Not to mention the passage of time between the alleged events and the first writings we have to 'document' them. You hint at this with your phrase 'apparent references to Jesus' brothers'. Why are they not obvious references?

No matter which camp you may favor, there are problems to explain. We may never know the truth.

Didymus

Examples, please. (You can quote from my posts if you like, but I've never called anyone a "fidiest" in my life, and I don't think of or speak of HJ people as such. Nor do most MJ'ers in my experience.)

Too clever by half. Clunk.

You (falsely, I believe) accuse MJ'ers of wrongfully using straw man tactics, then you strike back with an ad hominem! So much for sanctimonious pretenses.

Didymus

Amaleq13

I'm currently agnostic but I've leaned in both directions at different times in the past. If Carrier had not recently announced that he considers Jesus to more likely be a myth, I would probably be leaning toward historical. I respect him too much as a scholar to ignore this decision and I eagerly await his promised book on the subject (even though it will likely include a bunch of Bayesian probability statements ).

jjramsey

You asked, "Of what use is Jesus without the miracles? Of what significance is he without Paul?" and J-D responded, "He provides an explanation of the origin of the Christian movement." Your response to this was

Saying that an HJ provides an an explanation of the origin of the Christian movement is not the same thing as saying that we know Jesus existed because there are Christians, which is why the above dialogue is a strawman.

The assertion would be simplistic if one were arguing for an HJ that was a close fit to the NT. On the other hand, if we are talking about an HJ about whom legends accreted, then the divergence of which you speak is unsurprising. As for the passage of time, it would only be an obstacle to the HJ if there was reason to suspect that the Christians would have wanted to write things down early, which would not necessarily be an appropriate thing to suspect in a society where most people were illiterate and oral tradition was common. If they happen to choose to write things down, that is good luck for us, but not necessarily something we should expect. There is also the issue that if there were earlier and less flattering records of Jesus, we would not have expected them to survive.

I used "apparent" since there are those that argue against the usual interpretation of these references. I'd say that the references, in context, are obvious. Actually, Ben C. Smith had a good argument relating to that point.

Donnmathan

By that yardstick, wouldn't all legendary and mythical figures have to be historical? I think it's far easier to lump Jesus in with King Arthur, Talisen, and any number of others; there might be a historical figure in there somewhere, perhaps, but more likely you're looking at a composite of several historical men, a few older legends, and a lot of fiction and wishfull thinking. Why else would the gospels have such a hard time matching details? Kind of feels like the mish-mash of Arthurian Legend to me.