Toto

This is the crux, and you seem to have missed out on the debate on this issue. Delve into how this "historical truth" is inferred, and you find some assumptions that can't be justified and are not used in other branches of history.

ApostateAbe

I think I have already heard the criticisms. The study of the origin of Christianity is a somewhat unique branch of history, because of its strong dependence on Christian myths. I figure the closest comparisons are the studies of Islam and Buddhism, only the mysteries surrounding the origins of those religions are much greater. The skeptics of Biblical scholarship seem to advocate leaving the questions unanswered, but I think that worthy conclusions can be drawn if one can be content with mere tentative estimates of probability.

Toto

Apparently not

All history faces the problem. Humans like to tell stories, and prefer not to let the facts get in the way.

It would be hard to maintain this in regard to Islam.

You like to talk about probability, but you never come up with a way of measuring probability. You've probably picked something up about the criterion of embarrassment indicating that something is more probable than not, but all of those criteria assume a historical Jesus and try to figure out what is most likely about him, among their other problems.

ApostateAbe

All of those criteria assume a historical Jesus? I don't think so--maybe you can give me an example. To me, it seems to be a concluion that follows from the application of such criteria. The criterion of embarrassment is often applied to the question of whether or not Jesus was crucified. Is it more likely that Jesus was really crucified, or is it more likely to be a spontaneous mythical falsehood? Since crucifixion was typically an embarrassing thing for anyone, it is unlikely to be a spontaneous mythical falsehood. Therefore, Jesus was really crucified. The conclusion that Jesus existed also follows. You can disagree with the reasoning, sure, but there is not an assumption that Jesus existed. You can call it a bad argument for whatever other reason you have in mind.

spamandham

I have heard scholars themselves say that there is no such consensus beyond the mere fact of his historicity (some also add that the crucifixion is part of the consensus), so I'd have to see some kind of scholarly poll on the subject before I'd accept what you're saying.

What are you basing your assessment of this consensus upon?

It's still mostly true today. If most current biologists were YECers and it was obvious that their YECism underlayed their biology assumptions, I'd be inclined to dismiss concensus there as well.

After promoting the idea of consensus, you bring in the Jesus Seminar? Surely you realize that what came out of that is light years from the consensus you described above. If you can accept that the anti-consensual conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are nonetheless worthy of serious consideration, then it seems arbitrary to reject Jesus mythicism on the grounds that it's anti-consensual.

There are secular scholars in the field, and there are nonsecular scholars who seem to be reasonably unbiased. But these are the exception.

I don't think you're making a coherent point in favor of consensus.

ApostateAbe

There is no poll, so I base my judgment on my own informal survey of the research, and, yes, it could very well be wrong. "Consensus" may have different meanings--some may take it as 100% agreement, which may be true for the point that Jesus existed, but it renders the term all but useless.
The seeming scarcity of the intellectual consensus of any field being unreasonable makes their authority more important, in my mind. There was a time, before Charles Lyell, when YEC was the consensus, but it was also a time with little data, no independent debate, and no alternative explanations.
The Jesus Seminar was not the best example--they do have their biases. I wish there was another organization that represents the secular point of view. So, maybe I'll just direct you to Wikipedia for the point there seem to be a great number of critical scholars who are independent of Christian dogmas and are proud of it.

aa5874

This is complete non-sense, absurd and illogical. Jesus cannot be proven to exist because a story appears embarrassing.


It has already been pointed out that the criterion of embarrasment produces bogus results.

Examine the embarrassing event when Peter began to sink or drown as he attempted to walk on water to Jesus, based on your absurd notion, since the story is embarrassing, Peter did actually attempt to walk on the sea during a storm and Jesus saved Peter while walking on the very sea..

Now it cannot be shown where a man's history or actual life on earth is directly based on a story that appears embarrassing.

You must know that books of fiction may contain embarrassing elements in their story line.

In order to establish that Jesus was JUST a man living on earth, you need to provide a CREDIBLE source external of the NT, since the same Canon which claimed Jesus was crucified also claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, even raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

spamandham

It seems to me, there is a bit of arbitrary filtering going on. We reject anything with an M in front of it as being outside consensus, but accept anything with an H in front of it as being part of consensus. Can you think of a few scholarly HJ theories that should be rejected as too fringe compared to consensus, or is it *only* mythical theories that fall into that category?

I'm aware of them. I suppose we could start talking about the consensus of this minority. :Cheeky:

ApostateAbe

Definitely, no. New Testament scholarship is filled with unlikely theories about Jesus. The socialist Jesus is an example. So is the feminist Jesus. Or the revolutionary Jesus. Or the illusionist Jesus. Or the black Jesus.
Right, the non-religious scholars are probably a minority of New Testament scholars, and they are the opinions that I would take seriously.

spamandham

Ok, so what about the Jesus Seminar that you brought up earlier? I would not consider that anywhere close to the consensus you described.


Well, we're getting closer to agreeing then at least. Of the non-religious scholars, who do you think makes the best case for a historical Jesus (or makes the best case against mythicism in general)?