Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[fredd bear]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that's as clear as mud.

Are you saying you agree that the historicity of Jesus is likely?

I don't think that it is, no.  Even more fundamentally, assuming it were..I wouldn't expect to learn anything about whoever that was from any of the myths or legends we find today.  

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

I bolded a bit, above.  I've commented on it before.  That sentence is doing alot of work with that kind of caveat at the back.    What the majority of scholars agree on is that the majority of scholars are wrong about their pet historical jesus.

[fredd bear]

Well, that's as clear as mud.

Are you saying you agree that the historicity of Jesus is likely?

I don't think that it is, no.  Even more fundamentally, assuming it were..I wouldn't expect to learn anything about whoever that was from any of the myths or legends we find today.  

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

I bolded a bit, above.  I've commented on it before.  That sentence is doing alot of work with that kind of caveat at the back.    What the majority of scholars agree on is that the majority of scholars are wrong about their pet historical jesus.

 Ah, thank you for the rapid response .I saw that bolded bit, and it is also my position; that the New Testament has little if anything to do with an historical Jesus.

Seems I need to revise my position: that all that I can reasonably assert is that there was probably was a man, possibly called Yoshua ,around whom has grown a continuous mythology. This has been manipulated by massive, corrupt institutions for almost two thousand years.. I cannot reasonably assert anything about his life , background or his teachings..

This has been difficult for me. I've mentioned before that I'm a cultural Catholic. I had not realised the extent to which I have been clinging to Catholic mythology. By that I mean the very basis of Christianity, the reality of Jesus the man, about whom much may be claimed as 'most likely'

For me, being a skeptic especially means challenging my own beliefs. So I did that. Right now, I am intellectually  convinced  I was  probably mistaken .  However as far as I can tell, no truth statement is possible on this topic. I think it would be dishonest of me to cling to a position simply because it's comfortable.

I will need to think about this a bit more ,and do a lot of reading.

[The Grand Nudger]

The prince phillip movement is like that.  There obviously is a prince phillip...but that's the end of anything about him being the basis of a pacific island cargo cult.  No one who told the stories knew anything about him at all. Not a requirement.

[popeyespappy]

Q, a historical source?  Q is a hypothetical document proposed 100 years ago but never found.  The only point to hypothesizing it's existence was to rehabilitate the gospels relative inclusions and omissions, to strip the narrative of the supernatural, and present a character closer to our modern liberal sensibilities. 

There is no q manuscript, there is no reference to a q manuscript in antiquity, and if there ever were a q manuscript it's more than a little bit perplexing that no one kept it, considering the giant mound of trash that was kept and endlessly recopied.  

Here's an interesting tidbit.  If there ever were a q, and if the hypothesis about the construction of the other gospels relied on it as envisioned, the authors of that document didn't view jesus as the messiah, they didn't think he had redeemed their sins, they didn't claim that he had risen from the dead.  More a raving wanderer in rags.  The teacher of righteousness, lol.  Even the crucifixion of Some Guy™ is thought to be independent of this hypothetical q.

Any "historical jesus" derived from the q hypothesis will have nothing whatsoever to do with the character of jesus or christ in the new testament.  Instead, it would stand as a rejection of either of those characters being historical in any way.  The nt jesus would not be derived from q, but wholly re-imagined and independently constructed - a few sayings lifted here and there, with the jesus of q having been forgotten in process.  Even the name being a part of that re-imagining.  On top of all of that, the character in q, whomever that was, and if there was a q, wouldn't be on solid ground as a historical figure either.

The Q source, if it existed, is thought to have been more of a collection of things Jesus said rather than another account of the story. If the 2 source hypothesis is true, Q would have been where the sayings were lifted from.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not just a list of things that jesus is thought to have said.  It's a list of things that a particular jesus is thought to have said.  Not a jewish or christian legend or myth. Not a jewish or christian jesus. Secular 19th century jesus, heavy emphasis on the tradition of classical antiquity. The cynic, the stoic, the travelling sage. Confucius, not christ.

[fredd bear]

Q, a historical source?  Q is a hypothetical document proposed 100 years ago but never found.  The only point to hypothesizing it's existence was to rehabilitate the gospels relative inclusions and omissions, to strip the narrative of the supernatural, and present a character closer to our modern liberal sensibilities. 

There is no q manuscript, there is no reference to a q manuscript in antiquity, and if there ever were a q manuscript it's more than a little bit perplexing that no one kept it, considering the giant mound of trash that was kept and endlessly recopied.  

Here's an interesting tidbit.  If there ever were a q, and if the hypothesis about the construction of the other gospels relied on it as envisioned, the authors of that document didn't view jesus as the messiah, they didn't think he had redeemed their sins, they didn't claim that he had risen from the dead.  More a raving wanderer in rags.  The teacher of righteousness, lol.  Even the crucifixion of Some Guy™ is thought to be independent of this hypothetical q.

Any "historical jesus" derived from the q hypothesis will have nothing whatsoever to do with the character of jesus or christ in the new testament.  Instead, it would stand as a rejection of either of those characters being historical in any way.  The nt jesus would not be derived from q, but wholly re-imagined and independently constructed - a few sayings lifted here and there, with the jesus of q having been forgotten in process.  Even the name being a part of that re-imagining.  On top of all of that, the character in q, whomever that was, and if there was a q, wouldn't be on solid ground as a historical figure either.

The Q source, if it existed, is thought to have been more of a collection of things Jesus said rather than another account of the story. If the 2 source hypothesis is true, Q would have been where the sayings were lifted from.

 
Do you mean like The Gospel Of Thomas? Naturally rejected by Christian churches as it contradicts the established Canon, which was conveniently decided with divine guidance.

[Succubus]

fredd bear

The historicity of Jesus is accepted by 'historians' generally, for the reasons I gave.  It is not under contention as far as I'm concerned. <snip>
Historians generally? But then from the Wiki link you post with monotonous regularity:

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.

I don't know if the bait and switch was deliberate but that is what it was.
How many times does it have to pointed out that 'scholar' is not a protected term, any rundown shmuck with a two dollar prayerbook can call themselves a 'scholar' I'm well familiar with that Wiki page, I've covered this ground before.
  
Now here is your challenge, should you wish to undertake it; name one scholar linked to on that page who is not a theologian or a priest. You know, people whose very existence depend on the bible story.

I'll give you one, Bart Ehrman. And the rest?

[popeyespappy]

The Q source, if it existed, is thought to have been more of a collection of things Jesus said rather than another account of the story. If the 2 source hypothesis is true, Q would have been where the sayings were lifted from.

 
Do you mean like The Gospel Of Thomas? Naturally rejected by Christian churches as it contradicts the established Canon, which was conveniently decided with divine guidance.

Not Thomas.

Two source hypothesis

There is also a three source hypothesis, but the 2 source version is more widely accepted.

[Fake Messiah]

Plus, as I've already said, why should I accept what some guy on some internet forum says ?

As I explained you also don't accept what CNN's Reza Aslan is saying as well as myriads of other scholars meaning there is no single "Jesus of History." Albert Schweitzer, in his From Reimarus to Wrede: A History of Research on the Life of Jesus, was already discovering that every scholar claiming to have uncovered the 'real' Jesus seemed to have found a mirror instead. Investigators found Jesus to be a placeholder for whatever values they themselves held dear.

I mean even scholars are able to delude themselves. You should take a look a topic I opened some months ago in which a medieval historian claims how there was a real historical King Arthur but he wasn't called Arthur, he certainly wasn't a king, he didn't live in Camelot and Avalon around round table, he didn't have a shiny armor because he lived in earlier period, he didn't have twelve knights and Merlin (to which she says were all made up)... I mean what is the point of "historical" king Arthur if he didn't do any of those things? You can practically make any fictional character "real" if you go like that, I mean take He-Man: He-Man was based on Conan the Barbarian, who was based on Greek son of god Hercules and did Hercules really exist? Well, he did, but he wasn't called Hercules and he was not son of a god and he did not have superhuman strength and he did not meet Atlas and held heavens, he certainly did not kill Hydra, but rather there was some guy in ancient Greece who was very strong and brave. So some guy existed on which Hercules was based on and then Conan was based on Hercules and then He-Man was created on Conan so ditto He-Man existed.