RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 8:56 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 8:57 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(June 8, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Nestor Wrote:(June 5, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "Even without looking at the Gospel material"?Principle of parsimony. The simplest, most logical explanation for the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is that there was a man whom his followers viewed as god-like.
How can the Gospels be counted as evidence of Jesus? They are the claim.
The problem with that is that the Bible was written and compiled by his followers. I don't think it's a coincidence that they never mention Jesus farting, or how irritated Mary got with having to change his diapers after eating figs, or whatnot. The followers of any hero tend to be biased towards presenting the good side and obscuring the not-so-good.
The Gospels have been doctored for centuries by people with an agenda. Regarding them as evidence of a human Jesus would be like regarding For Whom the Bell Tolls as evidence of Robert Jordan. Everything sounds in place, but none of it is proven real, because we have no other evidence of either protagonist.
It's circular argumentation.
