Originally Posted by aa5874

So, you now see that those who claim that there is a very strong probability of a specific individual behind the Jesus story really don't know what they are saying.

They really have nothing but maybes and could have beens, just hot air and are simply wasting everybody's time.

You have surely identified the problem.

We are dealing with people who are trying to convince us that maybes and could have beens is equivalent to a "strong probability".

I will not be wasting my time with people who know what the extant evidence shows yet try to use their imagination to invent the history of another Jesus not found anywhere in antiquity....

Originally Posted by ercatli

If I don't speak to you again, please accept my thanks for the courteous and thoughtful way you have discussed this with me. Best wishes.

Originally Posted by Larkin31

this really got me wondering: just what kind (style) of documents do we have? WHY are they written this way? In what manner of style were other documents of the first two centuries AD written?

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Can you refer me to anyone who has written about this?

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I'm nowhere near familiar enough with ancient writing in general to give a good response. But the more I look at early Christian writings, especially the canonical ones, the more incongruous they seem as ostensible accounts of the religion's founding -- and the weaker seem all the arguments presented in defense of viewing them as such.

Doherty got me started thinking this way a short while after he started his Web site. Within the past year or so, some of Carrier's work has strongly reinforced my suspicions.

There are two questions going on here. One is: Was there a historical Jesus? The other is: If not, then what is the real story of how Christianity got started? The more I study both issues, the more firmly I believe in the negative answer to the first question.

My jury is still out on the second. I think Doherty is probably on the right track, but my efforts to check sources relevant to his hypothesis haven't gotten far yet, mainly because of time issues. I have not determined just what Carrier is offering as an alternative hypothesis, but from what I've seen of his work so far, I look forward eagerly to reading his next book.

Originally Posted by ercatli

G'day Chaucer. I don't think there is anywhere that I recount my own story. Should there be?

But the story is simple. My family were not believers. My mum and dad never went to church, though they sent us kids to Sunday School, as many people did in those days. But it was pretty mild and there was no reinforcement at home, so it didn't make much of an impression on me. In my middle teens I started to attend a church youth group, and by the time of my first or second year at Uni, I had decided I believed in Jesus. But I wasn't really happy just to believe, so I started reading, initially books like Mere Christianity and others by CS Lewis, Who Moved the Stone? by Frank Morison, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by FF Bruce, etc, to decide what was reasonable to believe. In my Engineering degree, we were required to do some "humanities" to make us nerdish engineers more rounded people () and so I did two years of Philosophy, including one of logic (with the motivation of ensuring my beliefs were as well based as possible). My parents and one of my brothers subsequently believed also, and one brother prior to me. One brother remains an unbeliever.

In my mid to late 20s, through a somewhat strange sequence of events, I did a theology degree (actually a Bachelor of Divinity) which gave me a lot more background in a lot of this stuff (e.g. I focused a little on John's Gospel and Philosophical Theology), though I never did anything more with it (like become a minister or anything, I mean). And I maintained my interest in philosophy, historical Jesus, cosmology, etc, right through life, and when I retired 4 years ago I started doing a lot more reading.

I have been an active believer all my life since I converted. I think living and doing is more important than discussing and arguing, so I am only sporadic in my involvement in forums like this one.

So here I am and that's my story. I can't imagine it is all that interesting, but thanks for the enquiry. Best wishes.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Like you, I did not grow up in a family of believers. Although a skeptic for most of my life
(snip)
by way of clarification on where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by ercatli

Thanks for your comments. I looked at the two references, and have a picture of where you're coming from. It is of course quite different to what I believe. I think at rock bottom I'm a fairly direct and pragmatic person, and I think I probably don't have the patience or brain to go into things as you have done.

Best wishes.