DiscussMormonism.com

Holy Ghost wrote:SuperDell, you started this thread with the word that is anathema to all religions and faith: Evidence.

Ghost,
Religious humans is such a large group that it would include a wide variety of people. There do exist some afraid of evidence. It includes many who are concerned with evidence. Christianity has produced piles of books about evidence. Perhaps you do not agree with the assessment of some of that evidence. Perhaps you react differently when evidence is short of proof.

Evidence as anathema is utterly alien to my mind and thinking.

huckelberry wrote:The story of Jesus is obviously important as a historical political influence but that was not what I was thinking of. I was considering how it invites people to discover what it means and can mean to be human.

I think I see where you are coming from. No doubt the humanitarian teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth make better people of those who sincerely follow them.

Manetho wrote:Sigh...

I'm just going to point to a few people who know more about it than I ever will. First, "Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again" by Tim O'Neill:

Tim O'Neill wrote:The main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements which only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward. As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.

Tim O'Neill wrote:The question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be “historical fact”. The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

And then the remarks by Symmachus and Kishkumen starting on this page.

Thanks for posting the link to Tim O'Neill's blog. I read a couple entries last night and am looking forward to reading more.

Manetho wrote:Sigh...

I'm just going to point to a few people who know more about it than I ever will. First, "Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again" by Tim O'Neill:

Tim O'Neill wrote:The main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements which only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward. As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.

Tim O'Neill wrote:The question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be “historical fact”. The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

And then the remarks by Symmachus and Kishkumen starting on this page.

Manentheo, I got around to reading your link, I thought the pieces you quoted were clear arguments. I found the whole article to be clear and direct , a good presentation.

In the remarks.(a reply to a remark which was a parody of a mythicist true believer)
Tim O'Neill says:
June 11, 2017 at 6:55 pm

The fact that it took me until I had read about half of your comment before it became clear I was dealing with a parody and not a genuine Mythicist comment speaks volumes about them. I have encountered Mythicists for whom the comment above would be too mild and well-considered, including those who seriously think that every single Christian writer prior to Eusebius didn’t exist and that the whole first three centuries of Christian history were invented wholesale by Eusebius and Constantine. I’ve long since ceased to be astounded at just how utterly bonkers Mythicism can get. Thanks for the laugh.