I see that the introduction of mainstream biblical scholars like Funk has frightened the piss out of the jesus-freaks. Good. Let's go for the kill. Lataster's conclusion to Part One which was his discussion of the so-called "evidence" for the HJ.
Quote:Now until some convincing piece of evidence about a Biblical, historical or purely mythical Jesus (or the beliefs of the earliest Christians) is found in future, it seems that the most rational position on Jesus would be a complete rejection of the ‘Christ of Faith’ or ‘Biblical Jesus’, and holding to an agnostic-type position on a more mundane, ‘Historical Jesus’. Maybe there was such a Jesus, maybe there was not. In the absence of convincing evidence, it is possible, but not necessarily probable, and certainly not certain. As Price noted earlier, even if there was a Historical Jesus, there is essentially nothing we can say about him with certainty. Many apologists fallaciously argue that Jesus Christ is necessary to explain the rise of Christianity.
Actually, considering the lack of primary sources, the late and questionable secondary sources, and the existence of early Christians who believed in more ‘mystical’ versions of Jesus, as well as the rise of many other religions that the Christian finds ‘obviously wrong’, it is obvious that the one thing we don’t need to explain the rise of Christianity is a historical Jesus Christ. There are far-reaching implications with the possibility that Jesus was an entirely ahistorical figure, largely revolving around the claims made by the various Christian religions. If it could be proven (which it cannot) that the ‘Historical Jesus’ did not exist, the ‘Christ of Faith’ could be dismissed instantly, presumably along with traditional forms of Christianity.[319]For those Christians whose beliefs rely on the factual certainty of Jesus’ historicity, which is fair enough given the stakes, the conclusion that Jesus’ historicity is actually uncertain could have great ramifications on their faith. That Jesus’ very existence is uncertain would also be information helpful to those scholars intending to combat religious fundamentalism (such as Richard Dawkins and Hector Avalos).[320] If we can’t even be sure that a mundane, non-miraculous Historical Jesus existed, how can we possibly be certain that the far less plausible Biblical Jesus must have existed?
