Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[Ulan]

I don't understand what you mean.

If I'd take a guess, it would be stripping out all wonders and obviously supernatural stuff out of the gospel stories and declare the rest as historical. Which is equal to missing the purpose of the text.

[outhouse]

I don't understand what you mean.

If I'd take a guess, it would be stripping out all wonders and obviously supernatural stuff out of the gospel stories and declare the rest as historical. Which is equal to missing the purpose of the text.

No credible scholar follows that.

You have no clue what I think. And your assumption if directed towards my reply, are factually in serious error.

I under attribute historicity with no apologetic bias what so ever as im a strong an atheist as they get.

[outhouse]

I don't understand what you mean.

Your on to something if you don't bring up Jesus historicity.

[The Crow]

. Frankly the entire jesus lived or not debate is a farce.
.

So you agree he was historical and the argument is inane?

OR

You have developed a replacement hypothesis that explains how they created a mythical character that explains the evidence we have?

So you agree he was historical and the argument is inane?

No. What I agree with here is that neither side Mythicists or Jesus Historicists have overwhelming proof that he lived or did not live. All this head bashing against a concrete wall proves nothing.

You have developed a replacement hypothesis that explains how they created a mythical character that explains the evidence we have?

Neither side has a smoking gun because if they did they would use it right? As far as my own theory no I could not tell you why they created a mythical figure and I would be lying if I sat here and typed some far fetch theory that I have no basis in fact to prove it. My own research over the years as proven to me that he may not have existed but I am no scholar and have since lost any inclination to prove it.

[outhouse]

Neither side has a smoking gun because if they did they would use it right?

Smoking gun is not needed though. Jesus has historicity. Mythicist have no credible position at this time.

I could easily claim the current hypothesis for historicity is the smoking gun.

A martyred Aramaic Galilean man at Passover generated mythology and theology after his crucifixion. It explains every single bit of evidence we have with complete 100% plausibility.

No mythicist can provide a sentence that explains the evidence we have with any plausibility. It is why Jesus carries the historicity he has.

[The Crow]

Neither side has a smoking gun because if they did they would use it right?

Smoking gun is not needed though. Jesus has historicity. Mythicist have no credible position at this time.

I could easily claim the current hypothesis for historicity is the smoking gun.

A martyred Aramaic Galilean man at Passover generated mythology and theology after his crucifixion. It explains every single bit of evidence we have with complete 100% plausibility.

No mythicist can provide a sentence that explains the evidence we have with any plausibility. It is why Jesus carries the historicity he has.

Up to you. Sooner or later all heads are going to bleed and crack open. No matter to me if y'all want to keep beating a dead horse because in the end you all lose. Ever consider taking up something constructive?

[Ulan]

No credible scholar follows that.

I guess you never used any beads to vote on historicity.

You have no clue what I think.

That may well be. As you seem to enjoy yourself in the role of the enigma, it's at least fun to play the guessing game.

[outhouse]

I guess you never used any beads to vote on historicity.

Nope never. I don't play that game.

That may well be. As you seem to enjoy yourself in the role of the enigma, it's at least fun to play the guessing game

I would be classified as an atheist following traditional education and knowledge on the subject. Not an enigma.


You may view it that way because of the company here in this particular forum. But as it stands the most educated here are pretty much on the same path as I am on. And I hope to learn as much as them.

[Ulan]

I would be classified as an atheist following traditional education and knowledge on the subject. Not an enigma.

So you already said. Which isn't anything special on this forum, either, and not an issue I brought up.

You may view it that way because of the company here in this particular forum. But as it stands the most educated here are pretty much on the same path as I am on. And I hope to learn as much as them.

Most of the discussions here are about details, anyway. I always mention that a minimal historist position requires the least additional assumptions, for example. If I argue about Q for instance, it's not about the existence of the common text between gMatthew and gLuke, which would be silly to argue against, but about what it tells you about a specific question, like the historicity one. I guess it's easy to get lost in assumptions about other people.

[outhouse]

Up to you. Sooner or later all heads are going to bleed and crack open.

It only happens here, and a few other select forums.

Having debated with most here for 4-5 years, I wear a helmet