spin

I consider that it not to be rationally defensible, given the lack of data, to argue that Jesus existed. I have debated this question long enough to be satisfied that no serious case has been made for a basically real Jesus of the gospels.

This makes me a HJ agnostic. I think anyone who can get more tangible on the issue is doing so without evidence. Some atheists say there was no Jesus, while all xians say that there was. Neither is in a position of rationality.

You have created, or borrowed, the term "Jesus Mythicist" for those who have negated the reality of Jesus, but what term would I have to employ for you, "Jesus Reifier"?


spin

contracycle

I know. Thats my point.

CX

I'd have to say I agree with Nomad AND Spin on this. I don't think there's a rationally defensible argument that Jesus didn't exist, nor do I think there's an ironclad case that he did. But, frankly, unless one is tied to a particular confessional stance I don't think it's an especially interesting or important question. Furthermore it is undeniably true that neither case (existence or nonexistence) can be made with certainty.

Vinnie

What historical uncertainty are you talking about?

Vinnie

Toto

It's not really possible to agree with Nomand AND spin, since Nomad will not consider the case for the nonexistence of Jesus.

Earl Doherty has made a rationally defensible argument that a non-existant Jesus is the best explanation of the historical evidence, and Richard Carrier has agreed that it is a rational and defensible argument, although his has not committed himself to it.

Given this, Vinnie, the case for a mythical Jesus cannot be waved away. You may not find it interesting, you may not be covinced, but you cannot pretend that it is ridiculous or only fit for mockery.

Vinnie

It depends. For bona fide historical Jesus scholars this thesis is worth little more than mockery. For the "mis" or "un"informed lay person I would maintain that the position is still entirely absurd but they may be rational for adhering to it. A position being rational does not make it correct. It can be plausible to them and excusable by others on the cutting edge of scholarship. For one on the cutting edge, specifically of Christian origins or Jesus research, or one who delves thoroughly into this arena, this positon does not get any attention (or extremely little) because it is nonsense that does not warrant any attention. For scholars its "what did the HJ say and do". Not "was there an HJ".

That is how I would distninguish between them anyways.

Vinnie

godfry n. glad

"Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken."
- Bertrand Russell

I've always found the proclivity to deal with only what HJ said and did to be presumptuous. It's rather like treating the teachings of Krishna as historically valid. Krishna is just as historical as Jesus and vice versa.

Dismissing the thesis as "nonsense" is denial of the obvious.

godfry