(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 1. there's no serious historian who doubts that Jesus was an historical figure
Richard Carrier.
(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 2. that many of Paul's writings (over half) are reliably attributed to him even by sceptics. He asks Finley how he knows that Cicero wrote his letters (and stumps him).
So? Ordinary claim, Cicero.
(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 3. It's the wrong assumption to make that Paul would invent Jesus or invent stories (he writes mainly about contemporary events and theology issues). He mentions "off the cuff"/"disinterested" comments - ie comments made that the author may assume the audience can fill in the gaps, etc, these are indeed important to Historians and Paul is not the only one who makes them FYI. He also mentions that we're sure Paul knew Jesus' relatives and disciples and this is also true.
There's the rub. Why would he lie? The short answer - Paul invented "Jesus" to be merely a vessel of Holy Spirit in order to make Holy Spirit more accessible to the ordinary mind, and to provide a bridge between the mortal and the divine.
(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 4. If you doubt the existence of Jesus why not deny the Holocaust or deny the existence of any historical figures.
Ordinary claims, cross-referencing, textual evidence... and the textual evidence provided by Paul is that Jesus did not exist and was a conceptual device.
(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 5. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.
Not what I heard.
There's a few problems here. What we consider history and historical is not what the ancients considered. Our modern concept of history is just that - modern - and before the 1800s most would just take claims at face value. The Greeks and Romans referred to their gods in an historical context, so doing so was just the done thing. But as civilization developed with more people and better communication, the old gods did not seem to be still active, throwing lightning and violating maidens, so this new paradigm of "man magician" developed. And it developed to satisfy a basic need, to tell a story to provide explanation, or comfort, or hope, or provide moral guidance.
Which simplifies to, no, I don't believe there was a Jesus as described. I think there was magic men, witnesses who embellished local heroes, and chroniclers with an agenda.