What do the 'Historists" believe?

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks for the links. I'll watch them tomorrow instead of the "news." I really don't care who Miley Cyrus is blowing.

Please let me know if there's any new information to add. I'm going to be doing a remake with Cinjin soon (I promise myself).

I can tell you that since making the video, I've re-read the passages regarding the timing of Mary's pregnancy and found that Luke places the conception during the reign of Herod the Great. So that settles, the dilemma I had in the video (was Mary a toddler or an old maid). It turns out the answer is that Mary had a 10 year pregnancy.

The only objection I've heard so far is that Luke's "King Herod" was actually a reference to Herod Archelaus, the ethenarch of Judea. Thus, Mary would have become pregnant around 6 CE.

[Tonus]

You can see why I'm having trouble distinguishing the fundamentalist Christian apologists from the so-called "secular historists" who carry their water. Where do the "historists" draw the line? What sort of skepticism of the Christian tale is allowed in their circles? What do they want?

I think it is probably a case of grasping at straws. It is similar to the arguments that try to establish that god has to exist, by exploiting gaps in our knowledge. In either case, the idea is to get a foot in the door and pretend that it means anything more than that. Establishing that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans for sedition leaves a person with a very daunting task ahead, in the same way that establishing that god might exist is the easiest step in trying to convince anyone that it happens to be your specific god.

But when that's all you have, you cling to it.

[Minimalist]

The only objection I've heard so far is that Luke's "King Herod" was actually a reference to Herod Archelaus, the ethenarch of Judea. Thus, Mary would have become pregnant around 6 CE.

Archelaus did not control Galilee or Perea. That was Antipas. The whole point of the Quirinius fuckup is that Archelaus was removed as ethnarch and Quirinius was supposed to figure out what he stole and what was left.

Then, of course, there is the obvious question of why Antipas, were it him, would order people to leave his country for a census in Coponius' brand new praefecture?

The whole thing is best explained by the idea that this shit was written by people far removed in time and space who had, at best, a limited recollection of the political situation in the first third of the first century AD.

In other words, the gospel writers didn't know shit from shinola.

[ThomM]

1 - Anyone who claims that you have no right examining the bible - is of no consequence since it CAN be proved that they have no Authorship rights to protect - no living person does. And as long as THEY cannot directly prove the basis for the writings - questioning the bible statements is simply logical and correct

2 - We already know that there exists no historical proof of the christ - whether from personal possessions, personal writings, domiciles, personal remains of claimed parents, or even ANY mention in any document or inscription that can be traced to the time period of the alleged christ. For a person who is claimed to have been seen by multitudes - whose fame supposedly reached the highest levels - and is claimed to actually be a "god" - how is it that the all knowing god failed to leave behind NO proof of existence at all - DURING THE GOLDEN AGE OF ROME - when there were scribes mentioned in the bible - but apparently they never saw the christ - and even historians of the era knew nothing of this ghost

3 - What they "believe" is belief - nothing more - there is NOTHING to support their beliefs other than bullying tactics

The christ remain a mythical religious figure for which no proof exists at all