ApostateAbe

There are many counter-arguments against the mythicist hypothesis, including the citations of James and Peter in Paul's letter to the Galatians, the corroborated knowledge in the synoptic gospels of the social environment of Jesus, the character of Jesus derived from the synoptic gospels of Jesus being an apocalyptic cult leader who believed that the end of the existing world order was imminent, with deadlines that apparently failed, which is an expected thing for actual cult leaders but not for mythical characters, and the execution of Jesus, which at first would be an embarrassing thing for Christians, which they had to spin in their favor ad hoc, again, expected for an existing cult leader and not for a mythical character.

All these things are strong arguments for a historical Jesus. Of course, ad hoc explanations (without sufficient evidence) can be given for all of them to make a particular mythical-Jesus theory seem consistent, the same as any weird historical theory. But all of those things work together to make a conclusive case that Jesus existed. Really, all we need is Paul's citation of James to at least make the historical Jesus position more plausible than any of the mythical Jesus positions. Why? Because the mythical Jesus position has pretty much no evidence at all.

Solo

Jiri

aa5874

You simply cannot use the NT as corroboration of itself when it contains known fiction and yet provided witnesses for the very non-events.

It is the very VERACITY of the NT that is being questioned, you need external sources to support the NT. There is none.

You are promoting the disastrous fallacy that if the Bible says so it must be true.

It is clearly absurd to say Paul met James because the Bible says Paul met James. Or equally absurd to say Paul saw Jesus in a resurrected state because the Bible says Paul saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

You must never forget that it is the VERACITY of the Bible that is under scrutiny, it is the VERACITY of the Bible that is being questioned.

You have not presented any strong arguments for an historical Jesus.

You have done the reverse.

You are using the very book that PROPAGATE Jesus was TRULY the OFFSPRING of the HOLY GHOST, who walked on water, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

How can you use a source filled with fiction as a credible historical source?

Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man in the NT, and that his gospel was not from men, but from Jesus who was raised from the dead.

Jesus was Supernatural, he was a God/man, just look in your own "history" book in Galatians 1.

Galatians 1.1 Paul is the evidence for the myth.

ApostateAbe

Ktotwf, you are not around this forum much, and I need to let you know explicitly that I choose to never argue with aa5874, so never let him argue your points against me for you. Thanks, that's all.

wavy_wonder1

This kind of hyper-skepticism is ignorant in my opinion and just as flagrant as any view that treats the 'New Testament' as if it's inerrant. You might as well concede its supernatural claims and be no better off for it in the way of argumentation. It's not the 'New Testament' en bloc that's being questioned for veracity so that anything that's written in the 'New Testament' should be suspect by virtue of its being in collection of literature called the 'New Testament'. Like any other literature New Testament literature has to be evaluated on its own merits, and that includes each individual composition on its own or each vis-a-vis its broader sociohistorical context.

I see absolutely no reason why Paul's personal letters mentioning his personal acquaintances who were apparently personally conversant with Jesus should be considered suspect and part of some elaborate fabrication of a nonexistent person. I think that's ridiculous, and it amazes me how people on this forum seriously wonder why it is that scholars dismiss the Mythicist position out-of-hand without an inkling of compunction.

Finis,
ELB

aa5874

You can't argue with me now, just look in your "history" book, the Bible, PAUL is the evidence of the myth.

Galatians 1.1 I think it is the HJ that needs to be PEER REVIEWED.

The HJ is obsolete. Read the Pauline Epistles.

1 Corinthians 15:17 - Romans 1:4 - Ephesians 1:20 - Colosians1.18 1Th 1:10 - The HJ had been made obsolete by Paul in your own discredited "history" book, the Bible.

Steven Carr

APOSTATE ABE
The thing we do not see is what makes Doherty's theory seem absurd--Christian writers arguing with other leading Christians about the existence of Jesus.

CARR
SO an argument from silence.

Already by the time of Paul, he complained about people following a different Jesus to him.

As he never spells out what those people believed about Jesus, an argument from silence about their beliefs is extremely weak.

Steven Carr

I missed the bit in Paul, where he talks about his personal acquaintances being personally conversant with Jesus.

Is it this bit? 'Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. '

So everybody agrees there are no peer-reviewed articles examining the mythicist position?

ApostateAbe

OK. An argument from silence is not always weak. For example, suppose that you are so pessimistic about American conservatism that you think that the Republicans in the United States Congress believe that the Earth is flat like a pancake just like it says in the Bible, and the Democrats believe that the Earth is round like an orange. Then I will counter your point with an argument from silence. Neither party states explicitly what they think about the shape of the Earth, but their complete lack of debate about the subject implies that they are probably in agreement with each other. An argument from silence is used to counter Doherty's point that the early Christian's believed that Jesus was myth. We would expect to see arguments about whether Jesus was myth or genuine, because we see arguments about so many other things that seem more trivial. At the very least, if the silence doesn't prove the position of Doherty's opponents, then the silence deprives Doherty of evidence, which is what his theory needs to stay on the table at all.

Steven Carr

You mean every time Christians write to other Christians mentioning miracles of Jesus, you would expect them to say that these are not cleverly invented stories?

It is the sort of thing you would expect them to say?

Where is the evidence for that position?

In these peer-reviewed articles that don't exist?