RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
April 1, 2019 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2019 at 5:59 pm by fredd bear.)
(April 1, 2019 at 9:27 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: This diversity of opinion, itself, lends credibility to the christ myth..which is not there there was never a person or many people that the details of each of the individual jesi could have been cribbed from..but that the preexistent christ myth is the reason that anyone would have ever done that in the first place.
The notion is that they started with a story, and added human detail to make it compelling to their various audiences. Polemics and parables, not news reports. The mythmaking continues to this very day.
Well, that's as clear as mud.
Are you saying you agree that the historicity of Jesus is likely?
Do you agree with the explanation given in the Wiki article I quote below? If not , could you please tell me your objections. Up to now, I have no problem accepting the existence of Jesus as most likely.
I have always found your posts lucid and reasoned. I do admit there have bene times when it has been a struggle to keep up with you. I would appreciate your opinion.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]
Contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
