Posted: Nov 05, 2015 2:21 pm
Animavore wrote:The real life Jesus of the likes of Ehrman is far more cohesive than the usual myther Jesus which usually relies on some conspiracy. Or they say Apollo and Zeus aren't real, why Jesus? But Jesus doesn't do anything too spectacular and most of his miracles are of the type claimed and believed by contemporary cult leaders today. Add in a When Prophecy Fails-type scenario and you have yourself a plausible story.
Richard Carrier has some plausible scenarios too, but who really knows? I can't agree mythers are denialists like creationists. Even if some of their rather elaborate theories are a bit of a stretch. I don't think history is subject to Occam's razor in the same way as science.
Good post, the only point of contention would be talking about history as a single discipline. Ancient history, sure. But if someone denied that Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK in 1981 it would be a different proposition.
It's all about weight and quality of evidence, and (following the original link) it is extremely trite to compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence for the French revolution, or evolution as James McGrath does.
There's a lot more evidence for people from the 16th century than the 1st, yet people still are free to speculate about the "real" identity of William Shakespeare, again in a way that they really can't with Margaret Thatcher - at least without being imbecilic.