judge

Actually one can make rational choice that on the balance of probabilities such and such is probably true, which in effect is what all ancient history is.

So I could say (if I even cared),that, on the balance of probablities, Jesus existed, whereas you have said above that I must think another way.

aa5874

What nonsense. The existence of HJ can ONLY be speculated.

Probabilities are BASED on some data.

If we USED the EXTANT DATA, then it is MOST PROBABLE that Jesus was MYTH.

Let us look at the data.

1. Jesus was described as the OFFSPRING or the Child of the Holy Ghost.

2. Jesus had NO human father.

3. The Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove at baptism.

4. Jesus and the Devil were on the pinnacle of the Temple.

5. Jesus healed INCURABLE diseases with SPIT.

6. Jesus walked on water.

7. Jesus transfigured.

8. Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

9. Jesus COOKED and ATE fish after he was RAISED from the dead.

10. Jesus ASCENDED through the clouds on his way to heaven.

Jesus was MOST probably a MYTH fable like the MYTH fables of Marcion or those of the competing Christian cults.

angelo

No. Most scholars agree he was a myth.

spin

The comment about scholars is of no use to us, unless you are saying you follow what most scholars say regarding Arthur, which would be very inconvenient for you when most scholars say Jesus was not a myth. Why do you say "no"?

Note also that I said "the early British King Arthur". I am not talking about this Arthur clad in the French troubadour tradition or the Norman version of Arthur. He is stripped back to his earliest for you to decide.

However, what is your source for the claim that "[m]ost scholars agree he was a myth"? My understanding of the scholarly consensus is very different from this.


spin

angelo

Next you'll be asking if William Tell was historical. What have these shady characters got to do with HJ ?
None of these have claims of been the son, or god itself.

spin

Putting words in my mouth has no useful results. As to Jesus claiming to be god itself, where? The claim of being son is nothing strange to a Jew of the time, for they considered themselves the children of god. God was their father.

You are merely deviating from the issue of rationally dealing with figures for whom we don't have sufficient data for, ie we cannot say that they were historical, but cannot say that they were not real. Arthur is one. Robin Hood was another. Was Ned Ludd a real person? The only rational approach to dealing with such figures is to be agnostic.

Figures maintained by an oral tradition tend to gain new tradition tropes, which merely make the historian's job of analyzing such figures even harder. Jesus, like Arthur and Robin Hood, has obviously gained tropes, but that in no sense makes the figure unreal. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?


spin

aa5874

You DON'T know what you are talking about. The Jews have ZERO history of worshiping men as Gods. The Jews would rather die than worship a man as a God.

This is Philo's On the Embassy to Gaius"
And further, Blasphemy was a CAPITAL TRANSGRESSION in Hebrew Scripture and was punishable by DEATH.

Even in the NT Jesus was CONDEMNED to be guilty of BLASPHEMY in the Gospels.

Mark 14.61 And this is Hebrew Scripture.

Le 24:16 - You are the one who is introducing STRAWMAN arguments. It is just ABSURD to use the information about other figures( real or not) as historical sources for Jesus of the NT.

It is PATENTLY IRRATIONAL to claim that once Robin Hood, King Arthur, Ned Ludd did exist then Jesus did exist or vice versa.

The existence or non-existence of even Pilate do not in any way prevent anyone from carrying out an investigation of Jesus of the NT.

Is it hard to UNDERSTAND that there is ZERO credible historical source for the ASSUMED HJ?

Is it hard to UNDERSTAND that it is POSSIBLE Jesus was MYTH?

It is ALREADY known that there are people who BELIEVE Jesus did EXIST as a MERE man.

It is ALREADY KNOWN that there are people who BELIEVE Jesus was MYTH.

It is ALREADY KNOWN that REAL historical figures can have MYTH about them.

It is ALREADY KNOWN that it is NOT MYTH or fables that is used to determine history.

It is the EVIDENCE of history that is MISSING for HJ.

There is EVIDENCE of MYTHOLOGY of Jesus from CONCEPTION to ASCENSION.

In the NT, Jesus supposedly LIVED in Nazareth for 30 years but THERE is ZERO about his life in NAZARETH except where the people in the synagogue supposedly ATTEMPTED to MURDER Jesus. See Luke 4.16-30.

That is ALL the history of Jesus in Nazareth for the supposed 30 years of his life.

This thread is about the "The Overwhelming case for an historical Jesus".

Where is the evidence for HJ?

WHAT A SURPRISE??? It was ALREADY known in ADVANCE that there was NOT even any evidence for HJ.

It is not surprising. NO CASE for HJ can be made WITHOUT evidence.

ONLY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of MYTHOLOGY can be found.

It is most PROBABLE that Jesus was MYTH. The MYTH theory of Jesus is Good and OVERWHELMINGLY FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

angelo

Agreed.

maryhelena

Update re the RS thread on the assumed historical Jesus. Members might care to follow the recent discussion on crosstalk2 re three arguments from spin - arguments which TimONeill saw fit to give airtime to on crosstalk2 - free publicity for spin - what's that old saying - no such thing as bad publicity....


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/23483

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/23514

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/23540

angelo

Is Tim feeling a little uneasy? Desperate would be a tad too strong perhaps? How about defending the indefensible? I have noticed his absence from RS, that explains his absence.