rationalskepticism.org

proudfootz wrote:

james1v wrote:

Byron wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Well of course myths don't arise in a vacuum. As a consequence, I'm perfectly happy to operate on the basis that a real individual existed upon which the Jesus story was based, especially if there exists scholarly work pointing to appropriate evidence on this matter. Not that this would in any way validate the assorted weird and wonderful supernaturalist assertions about the individual in question, which require a separate body of proper evidence to support, and for which none has been forthcoming. As to how this myth arose, well, I think we'd need something a little more convincing than yet another story to place the details on a firm foundation.

Yup, my position.

I believe Jesus was a historical figure because every early source -- friend, foe, and indifferent -- refers to him as such, in a specific time and place, within living memory. The idea that he never existed doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone until the 18th century. I'm willing to accept that it could be right, but it's got a lot of work to do, and so far, it isn't doing it, instead resorting to junk scholarship and Dan Brown "revelations." A History Channel special is doubtless in the works.

Many of its supporters seem either unable to decouple Jesus of Nazareth from Christ, or else, think that doing so gives too much ground to Christianity. Well, maybe it does (I personally think that Jesus being a failed doomsday preacher is at least as damaging to orthodox Christianity as the Jesus Myth), but it doesn't matter; we follow the evidence where it leads.

They did no such thing B.

If they had, you, or someone else would have ponied up the documents by now.

I've never understood why some people feel it is so important that the preachy fuck must have existed in the first place that they are willing to be religious about it.