Mageth

I've just read Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle (and some of the other reviews Carrier linked to), and I must get that book and read it ASAP. Just reading the reviews was enough to sway me towards the myth theory.

Reading the review generated serious questions about some of my statements in my first post, in particular my statements:

The main reason I believe that there was a historical Jesus is because the Christian religion started from a small band of his followers shortly after his execution.

I simply don't think there's any better explanation for the origin of this (originally Jewish) sect than that there was a historical Jesus, and his life and teachings inspired the birth of the sect and eventual development of the legend around his life.

Doctor X

Mageth:

Let me know what you think . . . so many books . . . so little time. . . .

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

Hey Doc!

I...feel...your....pain...

Gawen

jesusisalie...Mageth...Doc X:

If either of you are interedted in the mythocity of Jesus, then Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle is a great way to start. It's easy to read as well. I've been reading alot of it online. But I plan to purchase the book. And, to give Capnkirk credit, I will study Maccoby's book as well, which lends to a historical (but not divine) Jesus. After reading both, I should be able to make up my mind one way or the other. But so far, I still lean toward Doherty. But please don't ask me to elaborate...not just yet...

SignOfTheCross

Since I haven't really taken much of an interest in the historical Jesus, I can't say for certain yes, but it seems most respected historians believe He did exist. I think it's impossible to prove beyond doubt that any "historical figure" existed, if we want to be truly skeptical.

Quote:

I never bought into the "only son of god" story, but did believe he was at least a human who lived in said times. DID believe, but no longer do. After reading several books on the subject, it appears that the entire story of the new testament is simply a retelling of ancient astrological myths (mithras, horus, etc). It also seems that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this "person" ever existed. No roman, greek, or jewish CONTEMPORARY historian mentions him. For someone who supposedly caused such a furor, I'd expect SOMETHING to be written, carved, recorded somehow. Do you know of any convincing evidence? Is this truly the greatest story ever sold?

Such books have a basic premise in mind, to disprove Jesus. I don't think you've been entirely honest in your search for truth, instead it seems you need reinforcement from dodgy reading material and your fellow atheist chums. There is evidence of Jesus existence (i.e. Josephus), but usually the atheist dismisses such evidence because it was written by a Christian, hence unreliable, or the author made an historical error.

Quote:

I'm especially interested in atheist's point of view. If any theists reply, please do not use scripture as your source of evidence as it is simply NOT a historical document (a fact accepted by most biblical scholars) and therefore useless.

Why don't you start again but this time try and keep it objective.

Amaleq13

I wouldn't get your hopes up since Maccoby doesn't argue for a historical Jesus, he assumes a historical Jesus and argues for a specific interpretation. You're going to have to wait for someone to present a single, coherent argument specifically against Doherty. Meanwhile, however, I think Maccoby makes some very good arguments. For example, I think he conclusively shows that the depiction of Pharisees persecuting Jesus is fabricated but makes too much of the fact that Mark also includes stories depicting a less antagonistic relationship. I also think it is difficult to avoid concluding that Jesus was more political than the Gospel stories suggest given a crucified historical figure.

Amaleq13

Actually, I've found plenty of reason to question the existence of Jesus in the efforts of various scholars to describe the historical Jesus and/or the original "church". Reading Crossan and Mack made it clear to me well before reading Doherty that the earliest evidence gives no single coherent interpretation of "Jesus Christ". The former finds the evidence divided into two distinct "camps" (i.e. Life and Death Traditions) while the latter finds a vast multiplicity of communities with their own take on Jesus Christ. It is difficult to imagine how the events described in the Gospel story would generate so many different interpretations so early. It seems to me less difficult to imagine how a spiritual concept might result in such diverse reactions.

I don't think ad hominem attacks have any place in a rational discussion.

Toto

Josephus was not a Christian. But there is evidence that Christians tampered with the books that he wrote, so the references to Jesus are not reliable by the usual historical standards.

Most atheists do think that there was a historical Jesus. But the number of people who believe in a myth does not prove that it is true.

jesusisalie

Doherty's book is on the way (btw, amazon.com= one month wait). thanks to all for your response.

jesusisalie

I AM trying to keep it OBJECTIVE, hence the request for historical, reliable, objective information, none of which describe the NT.

btw, an associate of mine is in possession of the earliest known version of the NT, called the khaboris manuscript. It was given to him (an orthodox christian bishop) for safekeeping and examination after spending over 1000 years sealed within an altar in a church in the mountains of turkey. The manuscript is written in ARAMAIC, not greek, and thus is thought to be the most accurate version of the NT. Since written aramaic is an extremely precise (and easily mistranslated) language, the new translations can differ substantially in meaning from the current versions of the NT. The text is currently being evaluated, translated and photographed by over 50 scholars.