GakuseiDon

What raises it above zero?

maryhelena

Evidence - nope, where is the evidence - all I see is spin playing word games with translated words which are words that can't be guaranteed to be the original words of anyone...

Toto

The more I look at the evidence, the less it seems to be.

In the 1990's, Jeff Lowder wrote that the gospels were prima facie evidence of a historical Jesus. I doubt if he would write that today.

The only favorable evidence is the existence of second hand beliefs that Jesus existed, but we don't know if these beliefs ever had an evidential basis, or if they were based on theology or rumor or mistake.

Paul's evident belief that there was a Jesus who was crucified might qualify as evidence, but we don't know who wrote the Pauline letters or when, or how much was original to Paul.

In all other cases of historical figures with this amount of evidence, historians are content to just say that the character might be historical or might not be.

GakuseiDon

Toto: thanks for your response.

mountainman

Belief alone.

spin

Hmm, Memento memory.

Why not just stop reading the word games and go back to your stories?

maryhelena

And miss all the fun and games....:devil3:

Seriously, spin, its the JC story that people care about not the choice of words that are used in it's retelling...It's the story that has the power to imprint itself upon millions of minds. Step one; read the words. Step two; 'read' the story, 'see' the story. Comprehend the story not simply the language of the words that are retelling the story. Not just literacy but comprehension...

Who cares if Santa has a reindeer with a red nose, named Rudolph, and lives at the North Pole and can ride the night sky in his sledge - it's what he brings, what he fills that stocking with, that is of value. That's what people find in the JC story - something of value that brings meaning of some sort to their lives - it's the JC story that has value not the particular, the specific words that are used in it's retelling.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that if the ahistoricist position re JC is ever going to go mainstream, it will not be because of playing word games with the story.

(now back to a real game for a while - and see if England can play cricket with some flair.....:wave

Juststeve

Kaoyong:

When you suggest that no one argued against the existence of Apollo or the Greek Pantheon in antiquity your are wrong on the facts. The Sophists famously denied the existence of the Gods. With regard to Apollo and his brethren the Jews were deniers and so were the Christians once they became established. Although less clear one of the charges against Socrates was that he denied the Gods, atheism, if that word had existed in those days. Thus there were a lot of people denying the existence of Apollo but none denying the existence of Jesus, even though there were some motivated to do so if they could. That's something that needs to be accounted for.

Steve

Doug Shaver

I was not aware that anyone disputed it.

Not so far as I'm aware.

So, what do you think that proves, and why do you think so?

Doug Shaver

Richard Carrier still says that. And I agree with him.

But Carrier also says there are some serious problems on secunda facie. I totally agree with him on that, too.

I believe that will remain the case until the intellectual climate changes. And, that's going to take a long time.