The docetic heresy was declared a fair bit closer to jesus timeline (when is that, again, btw, lol) than the 20th century.  There were people, contemporary to the accounts, who believed that jesus was not a man.  If there were not, it would not have been declared heresy, nor would the account have garnered any attention whatsoever, to be declared a forgery by opposed dogmatics (what does that mean, in context, that one magic man story is less genuine than another, btw?).    

Here again you see that the situation you are looking for did exist, at that time..but again, that doesn't tell us much about the historicity of the character jesus.  All of this pertains only to the workings of a body which operated under the assumption that some collection of these accounts were true, and how they responded to counter or competing claims.

I think that researchers in the 20th century have a better chance at determining what was or was not historical than researchers have had at any other time.

(January 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 9:23 am)Jehanne Wrote: The Gospels are filled with legendary, embellished material.  Even William Lane Craig acknowledges this fact with respect to Matthew 27, going so far as to say that Matthew was not writing literal history.  Of course, Craig is a fool; very little historical information can be gleaned from the Gospels, but they all, clearly, point to an epileptic revolutionary with delusions of grandeur, Jesus of Nazareth.

And does the Iliad point to a pissed-off archer named Apollo?

Quote: So he prayed, and Phoebus Apollo heard him. Down he came, in fury, from the heights of Olympus, with his bow and inlaid quiver at his back. The arrows rattled at his shoulder as the god descended like the night, in anger. He set down by the ships, and fired a shaft, with a fearful twang of his silver bow. First he attacked the mules, and the swift hounds, then loosed his vicious darts at the men; so the dense pyres for the dead burned endlessly.

For nine days the god’s arrows fell on the army, and on the tenth Achilles, his heart stirred by the goddess, white-armed Hera, called them to the Place of Assembly, she pitying the Danaans, whose deaths she witnessed.

You've got to watch the special pleading Jehanne.  It is not "different" because you think it is about your godboy.

I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

(January 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And does the Iliad point to a pissed-off archer named Apollo?



You've got to watch the special pleading Jehanne.  It is not "different" because you think it is about your godboy.

I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

To be fair, George Washington had better evidence for his existence than Jesus. You can't compare the two.

(January 28, 2016 at 10:56 am)dyresand Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 9:19 am)Jehanne Wrote: I think that he was a religious loon, a total nut-job.  But, yes, the "Jesus didn't exist" meme, IMHO, needs to be expunged from the atheistic consciousness.

There is no historical fact that a guy named jesus lived and the damning fact of the matter is no one has the birth date of the guy 
no has evidence of mary.

Tacitus was a careful Roman historian.  Considering the synoptic sources, Q, the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul and the other New Testament authors (most of whom are unknown), it is an extraordinary "leap of faith" to say that there was not a certain personage, an epileptic preacher with delusions of grandeur, Jesus of Nazareth.

(January 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

Must be the sort of fact that you establish by repetition rather than demonstration, eh? It is an extraordinary leap of faith to say that there was not a certain personage, a murderous strongman with delusions of granduer, Hercules.

Tell me how this is more than modern day euhemerism? What we have in those sources is a history of a people who believe, and what they believe..... not a history of jesus, or any "certain personage".

(January 28, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

To be fair, George Washington had better evidence for his existence than Jesus. You can't compare the two.

Of course, but my point is that the historical evidence for an historical figure named "Jesus" who came from "Nazareth" has reached a 'critical mass', that is, it is not reasonable to doubt that he existed.  Why do the overwhelming number of scholars believe in an historical Jesus?

I would just say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is not much documented history 2000 years old, and much has been destroyed. There are lot of things that have happened which we will never know of.

(January 28, 2016 at 9:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

Must be the sort of fact that you establish by repetition rather than demonstration, eh?  It is an extraordinary leap of faith to say that there was not a certain personage, a murderous strongman with delusions of granduer, Hercules.

Tell me how this is more than modern day euhemerism?

Which historical documents do you have for the existence of Hercules?  Do you believe that Jesus Caesar existed?  That he crossed the Rubicon?

(January 28, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Which historical documents do you have for the existence of Hercules? 

Moot point as it's the very question we're considering.  We have the stories, we have the opinions of scholars contemporary to the stories (and the many centuries that followed).  Euhemeris proposes for the greek myths what you propose now for the christian myths.  This is an old notion. It hasn't, in all of the time since Euhemeris, advanced an iota by evidentiary standards. Conceptually there's nothing wrong with the contention, but if we're looking for historicity, or a brute fact of history, we're looking for more than a concept.

Quote: Do you believe that Jesus Caesar existed?  That he crossed the Rubicon?

I don't believe anything about Ceaser.  I don't know whether he crossed the rubicon or not.  If someone wants me to assign a truth level to that statement they'll need to support it, just as the historicity of jesus must be supported.  Not by the history of belief and believers, not by criticism of straw, in it's own right.

(January 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And does the Iliad point to a pissed-off archer named Apollo?



You've got to watch the special pleading Jehanne.  It is not "different" because you think it is about your godboy.

I'm an atheist.  That a religious loon named Jesus of Nazareth existed is an historical fact.  Do you believe that George Washington existed?

Actually, it isn't, there are a lot of experts who doubt the existence of Jesus.