outhouse

The same method historians use, since they are factually historians.

MrMacSon

infusion in believing-theology

MrMacSon

The fact is there is no primary-source evidence for Jesus of Nazareth/Bethlehem - nothing from the times he is alleged to have lived: no texts, no artifacts, no art, no archaeological sites.

Toto

You do not seem to get the purpose of this discussion. You can't just reassert your original claim as if it is too obvious.

In fact, neither Crossan nor Borg have written anything on the historicity of Jesus. They have just assumed a historical Jesus and gone on from there. When the question of whether Jesus actually existed became an issue, Crossan posted on CrossTalk2 a statement to the effect that there was no way to prove that Jesus existed - all of the sources could have been forgeries or lies.

outhouse

Agreed.

Doesn't make it all 100% fiction though.

outhouse

You cannot just go back to old mythicist propaganda and posit it as credible.


There is a reason why scholars find it factual he lived.

There is a reason why only a handful, a few educated individuals prey on the ignorance of mythicist and write books for profit saying he didn't exist.

aa5874

There are many reasons why scholars argue that Jesus was a product of mythology.

Juma

And that reason is?

Toto

I'm reporting on what Crossan said. What mythicist propaganda? He's your guy.


Then surely you can tell us what that reason is, instead of just bowing to their authority?

What reason?

There's no money in mythicism. There's lots of money writing books about the historical Jesus. Bill O'Reilly is raking in the big bucks with his book.

outhouse

He probably did live.

There is no replacement hypothesis to date for the exiting scripture that makes any sense at all.

Those few that have tried are pretty pathetic.


Nothing explains the literature we have better then a martyred man at Passover who people found so important they started comparing his divinity to that of the living Emperor.