Dominus Paradoxum

If you think Doherty makes a good case, as you said earlier,then what evidence (or flaws in Doherty's case) makes you persist in believing that there was in fact a historical Jesus?

Peter Kirby

A proper answer would take some time, as Doherty makes an argument that ranges over a lot of issues and documents. Sorry, I am working on "Early Jewish Writings" and don't want to get embroiled in this Great Debate right now. Besides, I don't care if anyone else believes or disbelieves that there was a HJ.

"You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!"

best,
Peter Kirby

missus_gumby

I'm not.

(Well, someone had to do it!)

Martin

Clutch

My suspicion is that Peter does not think that "in fact" there was a HJ, in some unqualified sense of "fact", but rather that this is a working hypothesis -- on balance more likely than its denial.

Personally, I think it's likely there was a HJ because the bar for the truth of this is set so very low.

I.e., I think the existence of a guy known to his contemporaries as Pete, who never did anything more than ask a good question in religion class one day, could probably suffice for the truth of "There was a historical Jesus".

The first thing a JMer needs, it seems to me, is a theory of names -- to explain just where the bar is set. But alas, I am a voice crying in the wilderness...

Dominus Paradoxum

"You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!"

I understand, but I find Doherty's case very convincing, and I just wanted to know what, if anything, was wrong with it. So if perhaps you could just list breifly the main points...