Did the man "Jesus" exist?

[ant]

Atheists with poor aim will always select literalists as their target of choice.
It's the safest way to look like you know what you're talking about.

[youkrst]

normally i go with blakes

let the fool continue in his folly that he may learn to be wise

then there is

Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

but when it comes to literalism it has done untold damage to countless people and the sooner it is exposed as the disastrous foolishness it is the better we will all be.

[youkrst]

Atheists with poor aim will always select literalists as their target of choice.
It's the safest way to look like you know what you're talking about.

atheists with poor aim aren't the only people who select literalists as a target of choice

anyone with a grain of sense will realise the only good literalist is a dead literalist because metaphorically speaking literalism kills the understanding.

the safest way to look like you know what you are talking about is to refute literalism because to defend it is to say "i am an idiot"

for the record i am neither an atheist nor do i have problems aiming.

[Robert Tulip]

Fallacy of Composition in action.

I always like getting accused of fallacies as it gives me an excuse to look them up and try to identify the error of logic. Again here I do not accept there is any fallacy. To assess this, the fallacious argument needs to be formally set out as a syllogism. This formal process will show that terms such as apologetics are imprecise in their meaning, and that my logic is actually sound.

Apologetics has a bad name because of its pervasive use of false and deceptive assumptions. But once stripped back to the bones, for example to defence of the idea that Jesus founded Christianity, it is really quite hard to identify a non-apologetic motive for defending the Historical Jesus. A serious historian with no Christian motive would look quite strange in arguing that late hearsay provided compelling evidence. Faith always wheedles its way in.

Even supposed apostates such as Ehrman have an apologetic motive in securing their reputation among the theological community, who regard assent to the creed that Jesus was real as an entry ticket to their conversations. Everyone else is cast into the outer darkness as congenitally insane, and Ehrman probably does not relish that prospect of being despised and rejected by his peers.

Part of the irony here is that Jesus emphasised that the stone that the builder rejects is the head of the corner. This means that in building a stone arch, even-shaped conforming stones are used until we reach the keystone, at which point a stone that has been thrown aside because it is not evenly shaped is used to hold the entire structure together. So we should expect that ideas that are rejected by the mainstream of theology today could well be more in tune with the origin and real meaning of Christianity. For example, the idea that Jesus was invented could be one of the 'stones the builder rejects'.

[ant]

This formal process will show that terms such as apologetics are imprecise in their meaning, and that my logic is actually sound.

You've moved from a precise to an imprecise definition.
You've moved the goalpost to save your generalizations of convenience.

[Robert Tulip]

You've moved the goalpost

Ant, you keep making these broad empty assertions which you fail to back up. A much more courteous method is to explain why you do not understand a comment and seek clarification. I have not moved any goalposts here, I simply observe that there are a range of definitions of apologetics.

The basic point is that anyone who says there is proof that Jesus really lived has no rigor and deserves no credibility. So traditional apologetics should be regarded with some level of derision. But it is still possible to have a defensible apologetic case for Christian information, as long as you don't try to say that black is white, false is true and speculation is proven.

[ant]

Asking Christian theologians for their opinion would be like asking a Newtonian scientist for an opinion on relativity. New work on the topic simply has not yet found its way into the old sources.

Question:

If mythicists are drawing from pagan, mythical, and astrological sources to conclude that Christ was mythological, why aren't mythicists publishing their research in these specific areas for peer review?
It would seem that would be a logical first step in laying the groundwork necessary to begin reinterpreting the zeitgeist of the H J.

Why isn't this happening? Is it because the current Institution that dominates the field ( Christian apologists) won't allow it?

[ant]

The basic point is that anyone who says there is proof that Jesus really lived has no rigor and deserves no credibility

I have never stated "jesus really lived."
I've said that based on the evidence available, historians have concluded that it is highly probable Christ existed and that is the general consensus among scholars.

If you disagree, show that it is NOT the general consensus.

If you are going to claim that it is all based on hearsay then you can pretty much throw out all of history as well.

You've continually glossed over why it is that historians are near unanimous by claiming (in so many words) that the field is tainted. You've offered no proof whatsoever to back your claim. You've been mostly conspiratorial about the entire matter.

You've essentially downplayed historians credentials, all while comparing Doherty to the likes of Darwin and Galileo. When asked details about Doherty's credentials ( like where is his BA from?) you've been unresponsive. If I missed it, show me.

Also, you've failed to effectively demonstrate why you believe the simplest conclusion IS not the most highly probable one (remember Occams Razor) without relying on conspiracy theories to keep your argument upright. Rather, you chose instead to promote a convoluted explanation by an author who must be considered an amateur because he has not paid his dues. You'd like us to allow the apprentice to construct our house instead of the carpenter.

You support peer review - except in this instance, it has no relevance ( a kind of intellectual dishonesty I'd say)

Lastly, you've accused me of committing ad hominem attacks, all while ignoring your own.

There is a misconception on your part here, Robert. And that misconception is called "The Third Person Effect"

That is my honest take on it. I am sorry if it might offend you.

Despite my stance on this, you've peeked my curiosity. I will need to look into this in greater detail.

Bart Ehrman has a book due out in a few months that will address this issue in detail. I invite you to purchase it and lead a book discussion. I'd be happy to participate. You are an excellent book discussion leader.

[ant]

Interbane wrote;

Any hypothesis starts by being creative speculation, that is what a hypothesis is. You are correct

I do not entirely agree with that statement.

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

History is problematic in that we can never establish anything with certainty because we can never fully develop tentative theory or hypothesis by experimental means.

From The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

Both during pre-paradigm periods and during the crises that lead to large-scale changes of paradigm, scientists usually develop many speculative and unarticulated theories that can themselves point the way to discovery. Often, however, that discovery is not quite the one anticipated by the speculative and tentative hypothesis. Only as experiment and tentative theory are together articulated to a match does the discovery emerge and the theory become a paradigm

Mythicists will never be able to claim with certainty that the H J was a myth.
All Mythicists are essentially doing is constructing their own puzzle with pieces they are cherry picking from different segments of history.

[youkrst]

Mythicists will never be able to claim with certainty that the H J was a myth.

this is terribly confused wording

clearer to say, bible jesus is a mythological character.

i can say that with more certainty than i can say nickelback sux! and that is pretty darn certain.

so what if you find some guy called jesus who didnt really walk on literal water or literally cure leprosy blindness and lameness.

...bible jesus did all that stuff but it was a METAPHOR!!!

not literal history! thats for sure and certain.

All Mythicists are essentially doing is constructing their own puzzle with pieces they are cherry picking from different segments of history.

no! i'm a mythicist (kind of guy) and all i'm doing is reading lots about ancient religions year after year and being constantly amazed at the way the bible is full of religious motifs that are running through all the religions of the world.

there is practically nothing about jesus that is not found commonly throughout ancient religious symbolism.

anyone who has even a basic familiarity with old belief systems goes WOW! i've heard that before!

if comparative religion were taught in school the churches would be empty except for people looking for a laugh, "come on lets go look at the people dumb enough to read metaphor as history."

i was a literalist for years so i know how dumb that shite is, i know what sort of convoluted mental back flippery you have to go through to justify a literalist position.

as soon as you see that it's metaphor not history it all makes sense.