Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Cyberman]

So we have an angel named Moroni and a planet named Kolob (Bolok in reverse). You don't even need the magic underwear at this point. Smith must have been laughing all the way to the bank.

[Minimalist]

The angel Moroni is the heavenly messenger who first visited the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1823. As a mortal named Moroni 2, he had completed the compilation and writing of the Book of Mormon.

Excellent analogy, man.

[Mudhammam]

I must say, it's rather entertaining to watch an ignoramus pat themselves on the back for having no knowledge of historical figures (but hey, as smaxypads clearly stated in post #403, he just doesn't care about facts! Inconsequential here! Lol), for which the documentary evidence is far less extent, while employing depressingly illogical analogies as argumentation which really only goes to show that the label of stupid he received was too charitable.

[smax]

 Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.

I think that pretty much sums up anyone who's done their DD on the subject.

[Minimalist]

Time to change tactics, Nestor.  Find some evidence rather than insist that the opinions of theologians are somehow relevant to the discussion.

[robvalue]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility.  Some even affirm it as likely.  But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus.  (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means.  Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)  

The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus.  Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.  But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.

I specified Christian biblical scholars I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight. (Not so much with me, but in general ) They literally can't conclude anything that would justify the mythicist position in any form, can they? Or rather they won't, regardless of what the evidence is or isn't.

I suppose you could have some whacky Christian who doesn't believe Jesus was real... err...

[Minimalist]

I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight.

Hmmm.....   Has a snake-oil salesman ever doubted the value of snake-oil?

[smax]

I must say, it's rather entertaining to watch an ignoramus pat themselves on the back for having no knowledge of historical figures (but hey, as smaxypads clearly stated in post #403, he just doesn't care about facts! Inconsequential here! Lol), for which the documentary evidence is far less extent, while employing depressingly illogical analogies as argumentation which really only goes to show that the label of stupid he received was too charitable.

I gotta be honest, I'm bummed, man. This was fun for a while, but you are getting more and more desperate and ineffective with your retorts. In fact, they aren't even direct now, you are sadly trying to appeal to others with your comments about me. 

I hate that I now have to add "Sad need for approval" to your growing list of pathetic personal characteristics. 

Oh well, at least you know how to call someone stupid without any real basis. That's a ....... uhhhhh ..... thing. 

[Pyrrho]

Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility.  Some even affirm it as likely.  But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus.  (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means.  Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)  

The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus.  Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.  But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.

I specified Christian biblical scholars I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight. (Not so much with me, but in general ) They literally can't conclude anything that would justify the mythicist position in any form, can they? Or rather they won't, regardless of what the evidence is or isn't.

I suppose you could have some whacky Christian who doesn't believe Jesus was real... err...

Here are the words of a Christian whose name you may recognize; Albert Schweitzer:

Those who are fond of talking about negative theology can find their account here. There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus.

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form. The thoroughgoing sceptical and the thoroughgoing eschatological school have only completed the work of destruction by linking the problems into a system and so making an end of the Divide et impera of modern theology, which undertook to solve each of them separately, that is, in a less difficult form. Henceforth it is no longer permissible to take one problem out of the series and dispose of it by itself, since the weight of the whole hangs upon each.

Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting-point the problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it claimed from its own half-historical, half-modern, Jesus. He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

In either case, He will not be a Jesus Christ to whom the religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long-cherished custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its own making. Nor will He be a figure which can be made by a popular historical treatment so sympathetic and universally intelligible to the multitude. The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.

...

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed. Secondly because, although historical knowledge can no doubt introduce greater clearness into an existing spiritual life, it cannot call spiritual life into existence. History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it.

...

But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from Him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence and rule, is that which overcomes the world.

...

From The Quest of the Historical Jesus, chapter XX "Results," by Albert Schweitzer.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45422/454...422-h.html


The historical Jesus seems fairly irrelevant to Schweitzer.

[Mudhammam]

Einstein answered George Sylvester Viereck when asked, “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”:

“Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

Having read some of the ancient historians (including Plutarch's account of Theseus---btw, does anyone discredit his Lives simply on the grounds that it includes mythology? Nope.), philosophers, comedians, etc., and giving a fair hearing to the mythicist arguments put forth here, Earl Doherty and the few others, it's pretty obvious which side evidence and rational argumentation supports. Jesus was most assuredly a first-century Jewish teacher, however irrelevant that figure is to the dogmas written on account of his apparently noble life, writings that make no sense when the focus of their energy is removed entirely to the realm of fiction  . . . which serves, apparently, as motive for some, but evidently (and ironically) not the Gospel writers. That much is obvious as borne out of the ad hominems and non-sequitors mythicists seem too often to reply upon . . . does anyone have to explain to smaxypads that belief in a historical Jesus is in no way (logically) connected to a belief in an afterlife? And he (along with those who profess to "like" such illogical remarks) thinks that is anything but stupid?

But I'm somehow expected to take serious and engage with such nonsense? Ha. Children. Bless their little hearts.