DiscussMormonism.com

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:14 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:17 am

I’d still have to investigate the one book you mention Jesus Remebered, but I haven’t seen anyone openly challenge the claim anywhere. All my best.

The claim that Jesus' historicity is not actual? Are you reading any of the Bible scholars at all? There are umpteen thousands of them who don't find Carrier valid. Why all the sudden Carrier alone carries the day and all New Testament and Bible scholarship sinks due to his book is utterly beyond how that can be believed. All I am saying is the hyperbole is far beyond what the actual scholarship has shown on the Historical Jesus.
Dennis R. MacDonald told me personally he thinks there was a person Jesus, it's just he didn't exist as the New Testament has depicted him, but that doesn't mean his stories, being created, proves he himself is non-existent, it means the stories have to be evaluated, not his actual existence. And MacDonald is an atheist.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:18 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:14 pm

The claim that Jesus' historicity is not actual? Are you reading any of the Bible scholars at all? There are umpteen thousands of them who don't find Carrier valid. Why all the sudden Carrier alone carries the day and all New Testament and Bible scholarship sinks due to his book is utterly beyond how that can be believed. All I am saying is the hyperbole is far beyond what the actual scholarship has shown on the Historical Jesus.
Dennis R. MacDonald told me personally he thinks there was a person Jesus, it's just he didn't exist as the New Testament has depicted him, but that doesn't mean his stories, being created, proves he himself is non-existent, it means the stories have to be evaluated, not his actual existence. And MacDonald is an atheist.

Thanks Philo. I’m aware of the situation. Carrier’s not as alone as you think but it’s pretty close. The contention tends to be the historicity position is lacking. This thread was started to point out what I see as a distinction without a difference when those like MacDonald pose a theory about Jesus’ life that is not demonstrable. Ultimately in this thread I’d love to see a solid case for historicity. None has been given, as far as I’m concerned, and I certainly could be wrong. I’d be interested in any. If a good case in Dunn’s book exists I’ll be delightfully surprised. I figure if there was a good case to be made then it’s be easily presentable. What would be the best case for historicity? Id love to see it.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:39 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:18 pm

Thanks Philo. I’m aware of the situation. Carrier’s not as alone as you think but it’s pretty close. The contention tends to be the historicity position is lacking. This thread was started to point out what I see as a distinction without a difference when those like MacDonald pose a theory about Jesus’ life that is not demonstrable. Ultimately in this thread I’d love to see a solid case for historicity. None has been given, as far as I’m concerned, and I certainly could be wrong. I’d be interested in any. If a good case in Dunn’s book exists I’ll be delightfully surprised. I figure if there was a good case to be made then it’s be easily presentable. What would be the best case for historicity? Id love to see it.

This would make an absolutely FAN-LUVIN-TASTIC series of episodes on The Mormon Discussion new social media LIVE and RECORDING videos that Kish has brought up as possibly another excellent outlet for our board to continue having fun. It is stuff like this that would make it ROCK man..... I am gonna see what I can do to help Kish if he needs it to get that up and running reality. Yes, it's work, but it's a whole lot of serious FUN to do...

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 10:27 pm

Hi Stem,

I always enjoy your threads in which you discuss the historical Jesus issue. The necessary step that leaves me unpersuaded is establishing what evidence we should reasonably expect to see, given the records that were kept at the time and the subset of those records that we have access to today. On that issue, I consider myself unqualified and must rely on historians who have expertise in that area. Absent a credible argument that we should reasonably some kind of evidence that is missing, I find the evidence we have just as consistent with a mythologized real guy Jesus as with a totally made up Jesus. That being the case, I don’t think I have a sufficient basis to arrive at a more probable than not conclusion at all. That might change if I were to become a historian with expertise on the relevant period of history.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:48 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 18, 2022 10:27 pm

Hi Stem,

I always enjoy your threads in which you discuss the historical Jesus issue. The necessary step that leaves me unpersuaded is establishing what evidence we should reasonably expect to see, given the records that were kept at the time and the subset of those records that we have access to today. On that issue, I consider myself unqualified and must rely on historians who have expertise in that area. Absent a credible argument that we should reasonably some kind of evidence that is missing, I find the evidence we have just as consistent with a mythologized real guy Jesus as with a totally made up Jesus. That being the case, I don’t think I have a sufficient basis to arrive at a more probable than not conclusion at all. That might change if I were to become a historian with expertise on the relevant period of history.

Thank, Res Ipsa. I think one could read your post and see it, at least in part, as a bit of summary of my opening posts. So I'd say there is plenty in our perspective views to find agreement with. I'm about 50/50 on it. It seems I come off as advocating as one opposed to historicity because I'm eager to point out the specious arguments used to bolster it. FOr me, pointing out Ehrman's bad arguments and evidence is not meant to do much more than show there is no certainty here as he claims. And I think its worth pushing that there does seem to be a pretty obvious distinction without a difference when it comes to arguing a minimal historicist position vs an ahistoricist take. But I'm just repeating myself again, so good to hear from you.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:16 pm

People are posting their personal summaries.

I think I am quite able to question and doubt. I can see logical doubts about the reality of God and Jesus being raised from the dead. On the other hand I think the evidence of the New Testament and the existence of Jesus followers going back into the first part of the first century is very strong evidence that Jesus existed and was in at least a general form the person presented in the gospels.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:16 pm

People are posting their personal summaries.

I think I am quite able to question and doubt. I can see logical doubts about the reality of God and Jesus being raised from the dead. On the other hand I think the evidence of the New Testament and the existence of Jesus followers going back into the first part of the first century is very strong evidence that Jesus existed and was in at least a general form the person presented in the gospels.