Juststeve

I'm asking about the recent book obviously. Has anyone, after reading Erhman's book found their opinions about MJ/HJ altered in any appreciable way?

Steve

Minimalist

I will have to read it one of these days.

I recall in one of his earlier books he addressed the so-called evidence for a a historical jesus and it was less than compelling. I imagine when I do get around to reading it that I will have the other book open for reference.

Steven Carr

I had little idea just how bankrupt the historicist side was.

You just have to read page 78 where Bart explains why Matthew and Luke are independent accounts to realise just how little about history Biblical scholars know.

Minimalist

I don't even know what they mean by "historical," Steve. I know fundies who insist that a "historical" jesus means one who walked on water, came back from the dead and floated up into the sky. Some HJ types seem as if they would be happy with a mediocre wandering prophet with a handful of followers who got himself killed.

Is it too much to ask that the other side make up its mind what they are thinking about?

Juststeve

Minimalist:

I for one do not believe in characters who do the impossible. In other words I don't believe in the Jesus of the fundies any more than I believe in the George Washington who threw a dollar across the Delaware or who never told a lie. If you read Erhman's book he describes the Jesus he thinks can be known to have existed in history. He doesn't walk on the water, come back from the dead or float up into the sky. He seems quite plausible as a historical person to who legends attached.

I'm not sure who you are talking about when you write "Is it too much to ask that the other side make up its mind what they are thinking about?" Who is this "other side" Do you imagine that everyone who has come to the conclusion that the man Jesus probably existed has exactly the same Jesus in mind? Surely you know that those who believe in an historical Jesus run the gamut from the Pope on one hand to completely secular atheists on the other. Isn't it a bit much to expect the Pope and I to come to consensus on who was Jesus really?

Steve

Tom Sawyer

Why? Isn't that like asking Christians to make up their mind about whether or not the Pope is God's representative on Earth? Some would say it's a necessary precondition to being considered a real Christian and others would say that it disqualifies one from being a real Christian.

There's no standards' body to enforce how any given individual defines how to interpret "historic", so it's all up to individuals to decide for themselves what it means.

seeker

I've never believed in the guy the bible describes as Jesus. As far as cobbling together some other guy who sort of fits the description except for this or that characteristic and then calling him historical Jesus I don't see a point.

If Jesus existed but didn't do all the miracles then he or the follower who described him was a charlatan, history is full of them.

Juststeve

Seeker:

First. Jesus did not describe himself as doing miracles. He was dead before those stories were written so I don't know in what sense he was a charlatan. Can you explain that.

I also don't think we have accounts from his immediate followers about him doing miracles. What we have is recorded stories about Jesus which were circulating when the gospels were written, 30 or more years after Jesus' death. Gullible authors in my opinion, but charlatans?

To support the charlatan thesis what you need to show is that a group of guys undertook to write a fictional account and pass it off as the truth. I've been around here some time now and no one has yet made that case.

Steve

seeker

Juststeve - Here I'll quote the bible:

Minimalist

To steal a line from Epicurus, "then why call him "god?"

I am the first to acknowledge that because of the commonality of the names there must have been 100 people wandering around first century Judaea named Yeshua bar Yosef. It is not the name that matters. Xtians worship the magic tricks allegedly done by this particular Yeshua.

It was H. L. Mencken who noted: Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense

Finding someone ( ANYONE ) named Yeshua bar Yosef does not solve the xtians' problem. Where is the wonder among first century writers about him coming back from the dead? That is a trick which would be worthy of a "god."