tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7695147485307241159..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: I Believe Jesus Was a Historical PersonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78194240979339654402009-07-27T17:22:17.065-04:002009-07-27T17:22:17.065-04:00I just stumbled upon this blog post and I disagree...I just stumbled upon this blog post and I disagree.<br />To John:<br />John, you said this, "And even though Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road".<br />Paul did see Jesus and he mentions it in 1Cor 15:8, "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."<br />Dr. Gary Habermas is the world's leading authority on Jesus and he proves that He existed and resurrected from the dead. Paul (as Saul) was alive when Jesus was walking on the earth.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />TexasTigRoland Tignorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18001664385420302490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32088364336014083812008-12-02T16:33:00.000-05:002008-12-02T16:33:00.000-05:00John, I have written a lengthy reply to your blog ...John, I have written a lengthy reply to your blog on my own blog. I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on it.<BR/><BR/>http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/12/response-to-john-loftus-historical.htmlHambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34401686723481475742008-11-28T12:43:00.000-05:002008-11-28T12:43:00.000-05:00John,Apology excepted. I still disagree with your ...John,<BR/><BR/>Apology excepted. I still disagree with your conclusion in the first post here. And I see no convergence of evidence for a historical Jesus; I see the opposite. <BR/><BR/>Having gone too far, though, with my prior comments, I will, unless prompted, retire from this field, glad in the knowledge that we're not angry with each other.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74991330537473539052008-11-28T12:31:00.000-05:002008-11-28T12:31:00.000-05:00Dave, apology accepted and I wish to apologize to ...Dave, apology accepted and I wish to apologize to you for what I said. The "blind faith" comment was just too much for me to bear so I lashed out. Sorry for that.<BR/><BR/>In regards to Michael Shermer's book I may have spoken to rashly, but here's what I meant. In his chapter on the Holocaust he said the same thing I did when it came to the historicity of Jesus in a <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-believe-jesus-was-historical-person.html" REL="nofollow">new post I just made</A> on this topic. I said this: "No single piece of evidence can do this, since no single piece of evidence ever led people to believe he did in the first place. It's the convergence of evidence that leads people to think he existed." That line of argument is straight out of Shermer's book when dealing with Holocaust deniers since they single out one piece of evidence after another to show that no single one of them proves the Holocaust happened. THAT's what I meant.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29193422725566847382008-11-28T11:53:00.000-05:002008-11-28T11:53:00.000-05:00John, I apologize for offending you. It wasn't my ...John, I apologize for offending you. It wasn't my intention, but it came across the way. Saying you operate on "blind faith" was insensitive. I only meant to put forward my position, as you did yours, but I chose words that were intemperate.<BR/><BR/>Saying I exhibit "sheer idiocy" makes it a bit difficult to apologize - but I've done so. Calling me ignorant makes it a bit difficult to apologize. But I have done so.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I'm Jewish on my dad's side (and was baptized a Catholic at birth), I own - and I've read - the book by Michael Shermer you mention, I've been trained as a historian, and I'm fairly confident what I think about the putative historical Jesus does not match up with the way Holocaust deniers think.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88201257192153276062008-11-28T10:37:00.000-05:002008-11-28T10:37:00.000-05:00Haha I love Robert Price, he's such an eccentric p...Haha I love Robert Price, he's such an eccentric personality. One time on the Infidel Guy he called the Jesus Seminar "a bunch of fundamentalists." Now thats skeptical when you think Crossan and Borg are fundies. :-)David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60660759241485328612008-11-28T09:13:00.000-05:002008-11-28T09:13:00.000-05:00As a footnote.It's interesting to see that thi...As a footnote.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to see that this question of the historicity of Jesus has prompted a sort of sequel to the Jesus Seminar...<BR/><BR/>Participants are to include Robert M Price, Hector Avalos, Gerd Ludeman among others.<BR/><BR/>I would seem that this question is quite topical & of interest to many scholars.<BR/><BR/>See: http://7thspace.com/headlines/297953/inaugural_meeting_of_the_jesus_project_to_take_place_in_amherst_new_york.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>or Here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.centerforinquiry.net/amherst/events/sources_of_the_jesus_tradition_an_inquiry/<BR/>(Thanks to Toto on FRDB - <BR/>http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/index.php )<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4772747667190412452008-11-27T17:27:00.000-05:002008-11-27T17:27:00.000-05:00Oh, and another thing. The way mythicists argue re...Oh, and another thing. The way mythicists argue reminds me of how Holocaust deniers argue. Read Michael Shermer's book <I>Why people Believe Weird Things</I> on that topic and you may see what I mean. I'll probably post something on it sometime soon.<BR/><BR/>Listen, I am not stupid, I do not operate on blind faith. Treat me as if I do and I just might show you a thing or two. The problem is that I have bigger fish to fry than get into this debate too deeply. Why would you want to distract my studies into a discussion that Christians reject out of hand when there are more important issues to deal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12776183850194345242008-11-27T17:23:00.000-05:002008-11-27T17:23:00.000-05:00Dave said...You, John, may believe Jesus was a his...Dave said...<I>You, John, may believe Jesus was a historical person, but your belief is based on blind faith, rather than evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Now wait a minute. The above statement is what I object to. I consider it ridiculous to say I have blind faith when in this post I gave reasons for thinking as I do. There must have been a founder to the movement. Paul was not that founder. An apocalyptic prophet is a reaonable answer and his name was probably Jesus. This is NOT an extraordinary claim! Such ignorance riles me. I might be wrong but I do not have blind faith about this. Such an accusation is sheer idiocy. Skeptics have become far to gullible on this question in my opinion, now even to suggest that to argue as I do is blind faith. I don't tolerate such things. This may be an emotional reaction to a completely unfounded accusation, but it is completely unfounded. Perhaps Dave ought to re-read my reasons and then apologize. If giving reasons is blind faith then I don't know what blind faith is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-92093613520387898802008-11-27T13:24:00.000-05:002008-11-27T13:24:00.000-05:00John said: "Don't piss me off with this load of cr...<I>John said: "Don't piss me off with this load of crap. I'm sorry but it's sheer ignorance to say this since we're merely talking about whether a human prophetic figure is at the core of the Jesus cult who's name was Jesus. If you can't even see what the issue is then I have nothing more to say to you."</I><BR/><BR/>John, I'm not sure why Dave's statement has you so upset but I do think the assumption that Jesus Christ of the Christian faith was necessarily a real flesh & blood person is perhaps the default assumption but it is merely an assumption and nothing more. I am troubled by what appears to be a purely emotional rather than a rational response to Dave's observations. Surely, if we are open-minded enough, we can ask the question: What evidence do we have for the historical existence of this "human prophetic figure"?<BR/><BR/>Apart from the evangelistic tracts we call the NT Gospels & the other Pre-Nicene (Apocryphal) Christian Gospels and apart from an obvious interpolation in Josephus' writings, we have no third party mention or references to this wonder-working, locally famous crowd generating prophet. Surely, Josephus or Philo with their attention to the most insignificant details of this time in Palestine, Judea & Jerusalem would have noticed this charismatic preacher proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Josephus mentions John the Baptist, a minor player by comparison, but fails to notice this would-be Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. After all, this Jesus performed healings, & miracles. He confronted & stirred up the established Jewish priestly leadership. He attracted crowds of followers & his fame was widespread throughout the region. He entered Jerusalem during the highest holy festival of the year & was greeted by crowds as the King of the Jews. He was subjected to a public trial before the Roman authorities, scourged & publicly executed in what would have been seen as a remarkable and scandalous process. His death was accompanied by severe Earthquakes, a darkening of the sky for hours longer than any eclipse could generate and the dead were ejected from their tombs to prowl the streets of Jerusalem. His body was discovered to be missing from the tomb & the local priesthood were alarmed enough to generate a story that the late prophet's followers stole the body rather than admit that he had risen from the dead. After initially going into hiding, his followers were then witness to the risen prophet's ascension into heaven & subsequently emboldened to preach the "good news" of his kingdom message. These Jesus followers then caused a great deal of controversy as they spread out from Jerusalem demonstrating signs & wonders as they proclaimed the coming of the New Covenant to all peoples.<BR/><BR/>OK. So perhaps the writers of the Gospels were prone to a little exaggeration & this Messiah was nothing more than some anonymous peasant carpenter with a few cynic-derived cliches to stimulate his followers. One would have to assume that he was otherwise so obscure, no one observing the public events of the time noticed him come & go. In this case, his historicity is of no significance apart from the trivial question of whether there existed some obscure nobody to inspire a few followers to exaggerate his importance. If on the other hand the Messiah figure worshipped as the founder of his Church was even half of what he is claimed to have been, he should have been noticed by someone - even if only by his opponents or enemies. Yet, we have nothing. There isn't even any good first century evidence for a Christian movement or sect comprised of Jesus followers until the Pliny the Younger reference so loved by our apologist friends. Where are these dynamic apostles of the Book of Acts, stirring up the country side?<BR/><BR/>This is a huge topic and worthy of careful scrutiny, but merely dismissing the Mythicist assertions with a wave of the hand & a refusal to engage the evidence for & against the question of Jesus' Historicity does a disservice to the pursuit of truth. There are scholars with good integrity making a good case for the mythicist position. (See Earl Doherty for example). Richard Carrier is currently preparing a book on this whole question. It should prove to be a good examination of the question. It is by no means just the grist for the nut-bar mills. This is a serious & worthwhile question & yet most of the detractors of their postition do little more than hurl epithets & engage in ad hominem attacks.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the idea of a mythical Jesus behind the Christian movement is too radical for many to even consider, but it has to be refuted on the basis of evidence - not simply dismissed on the grounds of pure revulsion. This is not "crap". It is a viable hypothesis & in my opinion explains the evidence much better than the Historical Jesus assertion. This question may never be fully answered but until then I think we are obliged to consider the evidence carefully without derision.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3314672330043767552008-11-27T11:08:00.000-05:002008-11-27T11:08:00.000-05:00John,First you say, " I cannot be sure about ...John,<BR/><BR/>First you say, " I cannot be sure about this though, from a mere historical investigation of the evidence. I could be wrong. But that's what I think.<BR/><BR/>Fire away now, on both sides. I stand in the middle.<<BR/><BR/>Fine - I put forth my thoughts, and you complain I "piss you off with a load of crap."<BR/><BR/>I don't think I characterized your position as anything more than incorrect, based on the evidence. As you said, "I think pure historical studies cannot prove whether Jesus actually existed or not.<<BR/><BR/>I agree with that statement - you made it - and when I do, you jump on me, in less than courteous terms, for stating my position. <BR/><BR/>I've just downloaded 2+ hours of the lecture you recommended. I'll listen to them this morning. If I respond here with my own considered thoughts, I hope they don't "piss you off" just because my thoughts aren't congruent with your own.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40637405220859686302008-11-27T04:49:00.000-05:002008-11-27T04:49:00.000-05:00Listen to liberal Christian professor Dale Allison...Listen to liberal Christian professor Dale Allison on the <A HREF="http://www.divinity.duke.edu/news/noteworthy/20080319clarklectures" REL="nofollow">historical Jesus</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64905979365318172382008-11-27T03:21:00.000-05:002008-11-27T03:21:00.000-05:00Dave said...You, John, may believe Jesus was a his...Dave said...<I>You, John, may believe Jesus was a historical person, but your belief is based on blind faith, rather than evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't piss me off with this load of crap. I'm sorry but it's sheer ignorance to say this since we're merely talking about whether a human prophetic figure is at the core of the Jesus cult who's name was Jesus. If you can't even see what the issue is then I have nothing more to say to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17430164569645749642008-11-27T03:14:00.000-05:002008-11-27T03:14:00.000-05:00>I just don’t see why we must discount the vari...>I just don’t see why we must discount the various independent writers of the New Testament itself on the historicity of Jesus."<BR/><BR/>Because none of them were eyewitnesses. And what do you mean by "independent," John. Do you mean they were not Christians? <BR/><BR/><BR/>>Why, for instance, should we not believe anything at all in the New Testament unless there is independent confirmation from outside sources?<<BR/><BR/>We shouldn't believe anything in the NT unless there IS independent confirmation. Otherwise, we might as well believe in the ressurection of Jesus, and the dead "saints" that the bibe claims walked the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus was resurrected, believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he walked on water and caused a heard of pigs to jump off a cliff into the ocean. <BR/><BR/>Do we have to wonder if pigs exist? Or water, or cliffs, all mentioned in the bible? No, we know such things exist. <BR/><BR/>But we have zero evidence that someone named Jesus existed, one who killed fig trees, made wine out of water, or even had a group of followers.<BR/><BR/>You, John, may believe Jesus was a historical person, but your belief is based on blind faith, rather than evidence. <BR/><BR/>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Those claims of the bible which are unproven are not trustworthy. Those claims which would include the reality of a Jesus are thus not acceptable. <BR/><BR/>Might there have been a Jesus? Yes. But there is zero evidence of his existence, outside of the human mind. And therefore, while he might have existed, so might have pink elephants and unicorns.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3059048092939081072008-10-24T01:57:00.000-04:002008-10-24T01:57:00.000-04:00We can prove that there was an Egyptian Spirit God...We can prove that there was an Egyptian Spirit God, their Evercoming Son who was called IOSA, and very likely known to the ancients as far back as the 6th Dynasty. IOSA is the name still used for Jesus in Gaelic - refer Gaelic Gospel of Mark on line. The Greeks Hellenised most Egyptian names of towns and people when they invaded Egypt in the 4th century BCE. Iosa is one with HR (in Greek Horus) and the stories of Iosa/Hor are virtually the same as told in the gospels. The first two chapters of Luke can even be seen in scenes and glyphs in King Solomon's (SalimAmen/YmnHtp) Temple in Luxor.Calumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141127852704148146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26597934065162155882008-10-17T17:58:00.000-04:002008-10-17T17:58:00.000-04:00For all practicality, a historical “cult leader” J...For all practicality, a historical “cult leader” Jesus or a myth “Hercules” Jesus is moot. <BR/>My assessment of the New Testament is that of a few writers in a time of oppression from the laws and religions of the Romans, that took measures to undermine the system and took a rebel leader named Yeshua and made a new religion based on him to rival the already popular Greek Mythology beliefs and the popular Roman Mythologies of Mythra that were wide spread at the time, combining them to make their own (very well written mind you) super hero story to out do all the other followings at the time. <BR/><BR/>The visions that Paul had and Paul* and company wrote about, were in the same vein as Mohammed's Koran and John Smiths book of Mormon. So well and ingeniously done, mixing in miracles and folklore and old mythologies, done in a believable real life kind of style, that millions still believe in them, to this day.Bryan242https://www.blogger.com/profile/12957651504343613102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14567060828671941702008-10-16T02:23:00.000-04:002008-10-16T02:23:00.000-04:00@zilch what I'm saying is that in order to be able...@zilch what I'm saying is that in order to be able to say "X was a historical figure" you must meet some criteria.<BR/>For example if you say "Marcus Aurelius was a historical figure" you are talking about an emperor that ruled the Roman empire between A and B, and was a philosopher that wrote C and D, was maried to E, and had the children F, G and H.<BR/>Some of these properties are mandatory/important some are not. For example if you find a story about A Marcus Aurelius that meets all the criteria but the son H you can still say it refers to THAT Marcus Aurelius. But if you find a story about A Marcus Aurelius that wasn't emperor you conclude it doesn't talk about THAT Marcus Aurelius.<BR/>What are the essential criterias to say A Jesus is THAT Jesus? The name, birthlocation, parents name, companions names, teachings, the fact that it dyed on a cross, the fact that he walked on water? <BR/>What if there was a teacher that was nailed on a cross but his name was not Jesus? Is it enough to qualify it as THAT Jesus?<BR/><BR/>For billions of people one of Jesus important characteristics was that he walked on water. To say "Well, there wasn't anyone walking on water but I think there was a guy named Jesus at that time" is irrelevant. Just like saying about Exodus: "It was an exodus but they weren't 600.000 men, it didn't happend at once, it didn't take 40 years, there was no Moses leader but it was definetely and exodus".<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a joke during the communist era:<BR/>"Radio Erevan calls Stoyanovici's home.<BR/>- Is it true that the Communist Party has given you a brand new car for free?<BR/>- Yes it is. Except... is wasn't a car but a bycicle. And they didn't give it to me but they took it from me"Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69877282715486764392008-10-15T03:52:00.000-04:002008-10-15T03:52:00.000-04:00logossfera- what you said. If a Jesus who walked ...logossfera- what you said. If a Jesus who walked on water and raised the dead did not exist, then the answer to the question: "Was Jesus an historical person" can only be, as they say here in Austria, "Jein" (that is, ja+nein, "yes-no"). That is, unless we come up with incontrovertible evidence that one particular Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever) was the source of the legends, which seems unlikely at this remove.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59582211162406177572008-10-14T08:34:00.000-04:002008-10-14T08:34:00.000-04:00I think it doesn't matter if a person named Jesus ...I think it doesn't matter if a person named Jesus existed or not 2000 years ago. When identifying a person we use all it's known properties.<BR/>The are thousands of people in Mexis named Jesus. Is it right to say "I believe in Jesus" and I mean a guy in Mexico? The name of the person is Jesus but that is not enough. What is enough to consider a person existed?<BR/>Can we say "I believe in the historical Prometheus" giving that there is a person who used fire beside taking a burning branch of a tree struck by lighting? Of course not. We know from the Bible enough properties of Jesus aproximate better the belief in its historical existence.<BR/>If the answer "Did the historical Jesus walked on water?" is "No" than the historical Jesus didn't exist. If we lower the bar enough we can say that we belive hundreds of historical Jesuses existed at the time of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>I think we should define more acurately what properties a person presented by a story must have in order to consider the person in the story was real. Otherwise "Constatine the Great" could be just any tall fellow named Constantine whos mother was called Helen. :)Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61939800623392985472008-10-13T23:49:00.000-04:002008-10-13T23:49:00.000-04:00After personally reviewing this question in depth ...After personally reviewing this question in depth for the past year, I find the evidence for an historical Jesus to be surprisingly weak. <BR/><BR/>Earl Doherty's thesis as outlined in his book "the Jesus Puzzle" gives the Mythical Jesus hypothesis some decent traction & deserves a little more consideration than people are often willing to give. (See: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm )<BR/><BR/>We have no trouble dismissing the obviously embellished apocryphal gospels, why would anyone give the canonical gospels more credence?<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5703287069375124412008-10-13T13:31:00.000-04:002008-10-13T13:31:00.000-04:00Evan, Harry & Others,Hey fellas, I've been...Evan, Harry & Others,<BR/><BR/>Hey fellas, I've been indisposed as of late and that won't change until next week, but I wanteed to chime in on a few items,<BR/><BR/>The name Jesus or Yesu was not a popular second century or later construct. The name went back to yehoshua or Joshua. The reaosn being was the desire of the jew to disassociate themselves from the Jesus of Christianity. There were many Jesus's in 1st Century. Josephus mentions at least 8 if memory serves me right, but the Jesus of Christianity was highly distinguishable in every writing and refrence. Josephus was clear in his indications and scholars agree as to the historic person he was refrencing. Christ, or the title was often associates with his name for further clarification. So there was not as much of a confusion on the identity of the Jesus of history as it may seem.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, one of the commentors mentioned Paul. Just a quick note the Pharisaec thoughts of Paul SCREAM through his writings. The whole foundation of his concept of faith is OT from Hab. Paul could not have refrenced the OT more heavily than he did. So I find it very obtuse that anyone could read what he talked about and come to any other conclusion unless they were reading with and obvious philosophical and presuppositional bias.<BR/><BR/>In essence, like Habermas, I believe we can use minimal facts to confirm Jesus' historicity. Arguments against the historical figure remain uncompelling and largely use arguments from silence as proof while minimizing the proofs acroos the board that exist. <BR/><BR/>In essence, we can easily and readily eliminate any thoughts of Jesus being a second century construct by multiple attestation, the criteria of embarassment which helsp to confirm additional information exclusive to the time and further solidifies his first century reality. <BR/><BR/>In closing to make Jesus aan essene or Ebionite also is disingenious to history as there is no evidence in support of either notion and the evidence we do have clearly takes all arguments totally against such notions.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>BTW: David, That bowl, if it is a refrence to the historical Jesus would be on parr with what we know the thoughts were about Jesus outside of his ministry core. Remember Herod wanted Jesus to do a "magic trick" for him when he was sent to him from Pilate. His core and disciples and apostles however identified his actions cleary as the work of the Lord and not magic. Additionally, in Acts 19, there were some "sourcers" called the "Son's of Sceva"(Left hand) that used Jesus name in their incantations and magic spells. I would expect there to be additional finds regarding this also.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24720081206837489742008-10-13T10:40:00.000-04:002008-10-13T10:40:00.000-04:00John, here are the arguments I glean from your pos...John, here are the arguments I glean from your post in favor of historicity.<BR/><BR/><I>1-Early sources and creeds support historicity.<BR/><BR/>2-Traditions must be based on something. Why discount the independent sources that attest to a historical Jesus?<BR/><BR/>3-Jesus as described is very Jewish.<BR/><BR/>4-Cultic religious groups are started by a cult figure. Could have been Paul, but Paul attests to previously existing Christians. This makes Jesus more likely.</I><BR/><BR/>There is an important point to keep in mind regarding the first point. What does it mean to say that the creeds are "early." That only makes sense if we know approximately when Jesus lived and died. So it's only a relevant point if we assume historicity. What if we assume a-historicity? The creeds are not within a few years of Jesus death or anything like that. The timing of Jesus life was retrospectively chosen and the creeds may originate from a time close to the period that was chosen. But that doesn't help as far as reliability.<BR/><BR/>Also note that sing/song creeds usually reflect events that are regarded as being from far in the past. Normally you don't start getting poems and sing song creeds about people recently deceased. Anybody writing songs about Johnny Carson, Johnie Cochran, or Peter Jennings? Poems are usually about people who have had more time to have legends accrue.<BR/><BR/>On the second point, how much independence is going on here? Once again, Paul doesn't put Jesus in a historical setting. Mark is the earliest document that does, and many of the subsequent writings are clearly based on what he offers. Do we really know that the early church fathers are independent of Q/Mark?<BR/><BR/>On the third point, even if true it doesn't get you very far. Tom Sawyer may fit right in as a child of his time and place, but this doesn't make him historical.<BR/><BR/>One point regarding the founder. Have you seen "The God Who Wasn't There"? In that movie Fleming interviews the Mikklesons (founders of snopes.com). They point out that that many legends originate from a variety of independent sources which all somehow coalesce on a finalized version. There could be many other contributors other than Paul, Mark/Q, etc. If Jesus existed he may have also contributed, but that's not necessary.<BR/><BR/>I think the best reason to regard Jesus as a historical person is Paul's reference to James, the brother of the Lord in Galatians chapter 1. In my view other evidence from Paul weighs against the view that he regarded Jesus as a person that walked the earth. But I can see why a reasonable person would disagree.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16937960351367787352008-10-12T16:28:00.000-04:002008-10-12T16:28:00.000-04:00Adam H - the only difference is that we have actua...Adam H - the only difference is that we have actual documents that are from a variety of sources that date to the Holocaust. We have real eyewitness accounts from the same years, not some anonymous writing that took place 30+ years after the fact (at a time when literacy was extremely rare). Add in that our methods of information transmission and storage are superior, and are definitely more accurate (despite claims to the contrary, archaeology and anthropology have shown that in ancient times, the message mattered more than pesky details - historical accuracy was a later development), than what was commonplace in the 1st-3rd centuries CE, you can see that our records are far more accurate and complete than anything back then. The analogy falls flat.<BR/><BR/>Did there exist a figure that became mythologized into "Jesus" or "the Christ"? Possibly. That's the common one because it is an easier and simpler explanation, and one that is more palatable to people. From what I've read about some new discoveries, there may have existed legends of a "dying/rising" messiah-type figure (perhaps the same "Chrestos" linked above, I'm not sure). <BR/><BR/>Of course, if we keep the same standards for a historical human "Jesus" (I'm not so sure that that was his name or a title given him - I've read some interesting commentary on that, but it really is irrelevant), then we need to keep them for other figures. This goes way back to Herodotus, IIRC - there were humans behind the legends of Hercules & others. We even know the names of his parents (mother at least, not sure of an earthly father), and in some legends there were birth places given. Ehrman has some interesting ideas, but he is heavily invested in his own hypothesis and from several interviews he is really good at disregarding contrary evidence or ideas. I like him, but lost respect for him as a scholar because of that.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, while I currently find more credence to a mythical Jesus (even though the hypothesis has far to go, and needs to explain some evidence), whether there was a human or not is irrelevant. What matters is how the mythology developed, and what its followers are doing in the present time. A two-thousand year old corpse matters naught.Badger3khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04008838430274720250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38530705691030622792008-10-12T14:21:00.000-04:002008-10-12T14:21:00.000-04:00A YouTube mini-doc about the awfully horrible fact...A YouTube mini-doc about the awfully horrible facts concening<BR/>“The Origin of Jesus Christ” Parts, I & II.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39015284459338589822008-10-12T08:13:00.000-04:002008-10-12T08:13:00.000-04:00Yes, historical studies are fraught with problems....Yes, historical studies are fraught with problems.<BR/><BR/>Using your criteria, I can see historians a hundred years from now, when the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the last eyewitnesses have passed away, casting doubt on the holocaust...to an even greater degree than they already do.AdamHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00939241865532583268noreply@blogger.com