Vinnie

Both of those works aretwo of the poorest ones you could have read. Two extremes on opposite sides of the spectrum. Strobel, Freke and Gandy and names to avoid in your researches.

Jesus = man who was mythicized.

Vinnie

Mageth

Vinnie, have you read Spong, and if so what do you think of the quality of his work and his conclusions?

I just finished Resurrection: Myth or Reality? and thought he put down a pretty solid argument for his scenario of how Jesus's life and death were mythicized, and against a literal, linear reading of the Gospels.

Sparrow

Here in the Deep South (which is also shallow in some regards) the nominal icebreaker to conversation often was "Which church do you go to?" Just to stop the conversation in its tracks I used to say "I'm a reformed Druid." When their eyes would widen I'd add "we're allowed to pray at small bushes and artificial trees." I mostly did that because if you said that you were an atheist they often treated you as if you were shopping for a religion. They would then switch into sales pressure mode. Extra credit for every soul saved.

I think we can assume there was someone named Jesus (however it's spelled and pronounced in its native language), after all it was supposedly a common name. There's very little evidence one of these was a successful itinerant preacher, though that's not impossible. There were apparently many itinerant preachers and messiah wannabe's running around then.

What I find the hardest to ignore though is the complete lack of extant records describing any of the following:

The prophecied birth - supposedly the wise men travel from afar bringing gifts, yet nothing is written about the child for years? If this is the prohecied messiah lying here in the manger pooping into his diaper, how is it that nothing of his childhood survives? Don't you suppose that somewhere along the way someone older would have let Jesus know about the manger story?
The many miracles - loaves and fishes, walking on water, restoring sight to the blind, etc. were all the witnesses so stunned that they couldn't write any of this down?
The resurrection - was coming back to life after death so common that it would not have attracted any attention at all? Even if it had been faked, doesn't it make sense that reports of the event would be all over the messages back to Rome?

It just seems to me that these types of records would have been widespread.

Mageth

And for the record, I've started from the position of believing there (probably) was an historical Jesus (actually, I started from literally believing in the historicity and divinity of Jesus in my former Christian life), and am currently reading various authors (Spong, Pagels, Crossan, etc, and at some point Doherty, though I've already read the reviews of The Jesus Puzzle by Richard Carrier and others that give a pretty good outline of his main argument) to try to unravel the "Jesus Puzzle" on my own. At this point, I still believe there probably was an historical Jesus, but that he was not divine and the stories (Gospels, mainly) about him were legendized. As Vinnie pointed out so succinctly, "Jesus = man who was mythicized". That position may change in the future, though ultimately I don't think we can know for sure.

godfry n. glad

And... You make this assertion based upon...what?

Can you please supply some incontrovertible evidence as to the existence of this "man"?

godfry

Mageth

Not speaking for Vinnie, but for me, the "best evidence", and really only other "valid" extra-biblical evidence, I have for an HJ is the origin of the Christian cult soon after his alleged execution; I (presently) feel the actual existence of Jesus is the best explanation for this phenomenon (though currently my position on HJ might be best described as "agnostic", as I currently don't think we can know if Jesus existed or didn't exist for sure).

Of course, Doherty's theory (once I get around to actually reading it) or some other argument(s) may provide a strong counter-argument to that admiteddly shaky "evidence", and may make it entirely reasonable for me to abandon belief in the probability of an HJ and become a complete mythicist, abandoning my current position which is basically agnostic on the subject. But having not yet read Doherty's book (beyond reading reviews of it), currently I consider it probable that some man existed in history around which the legends and myths were built.

godfry n. glad

What "valid" extra-biblical evidence?

godfry

Tristan Scott

I agree with this. We know that at least some scripture in the New Testament was written while those who claim to have actually known the person Jesus were still alive. It seems that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were attempts at least in part to chronicle the teachings of this person, which up until then had been passed on by word of mouth, and possibly other writings that have not survived. It seems that at least those sayings and teachings, of which this cult was based, particularly the parables, are the best "evidence" for a HJ.

godfry n. glad

"Some scripture"? Which? Please elaborate.

The only scripture we have that even comes close, in terms of the reputed lifetime, is the Rylands fragment from what we now know as the Gospel According to John (maybe). It is dated at 125 CE, a goodly distance in time from the postulated 30-33 CE crucifiction date. Someone alive and cognizant enough to recognize the import of the events would have had to have been say, 15 years old in 30 CE. If we allow 5 years on the other end for early circulation, the the author of GJohn would have had to have spoken to someone in the realm of 100 years of age....and this is a day and age when the _average_ lifespan was 35 to 40 years. And even then, the dating and content of this materials is argued, because what is available is so small in total amount.

How do you even know that this fragment of GJohn is from a reliable historical chronicle source, rather than a theological midrash document?

The only earlier are Paul's epistles, which cannot be used to prop up any "historical" Jesus, because he never makes that claim. The author Paul seems to have had little idea when this earthly Jesus might have lived and died and seems to have no idea of his earthly ministry. And he reputedly _did_ live during the reputed time of those who might have known an historical Jesus and imparted that information to him. Instead, he vets _his_ sources based upon their having visions of the divine risen Jesus, not the historical, profane Jesus. And, then... There are credible scholars who have floated the idea that Paul himself may be a polemical fictional creation.

But then, perhaps you're thinking of another "source"?

godfry

Mageth

Reread my post. I indicated that the "evidence" I included in the post was the only "valid" extrabiblical evidence I know of, and obviously explained why I have doubts as to the validity of even that evidence.