For anyone who is interested, one of Canada’s top magazines, “Maclean’s,” just published an article about whether Jesus existed or not. Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/
Bringing in our updated understanding of how our memory processes actually function, is quite warranted in this question. Researchers have found that our memory, is not like a video recording. Each time a memory is accessed, it is essentially recreated, but not necessarily the same each time. Each time a memory is accessed, it is subject to influences that have changed since the experience of the original event. Thus a memory which we believe is a relatively absolute representation of an event, is subject to change, each time that it is accessed. What may seem to an individual to be a very accurate representation of an event, may have morphed into something that is at great variance to the original experience.
For anyone who is interested, one of Canada's top magazines, "Maclean's," just published an article about whether Jesus existed or not. Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/The question isn't so much whether a man of that name and that reputation ever existed. The question is, was he divine? That's a question that can't be answered by any kind of historical research. If he was merely a man around whom a myth arose, his existence is of little consequence. Divinity is something else entirely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No being on earth has ever been shown to be divine. Many people have been reported to be divine, also wih no evidence. Reports of divinity mean nothing. They're a dime a dozen. Lois
A decent review of Richard Carrier’s work, but it was kinda weird the way it started out being about Ehrman’s latest book, then disparaged it. There’s nothing new here really, on the Ehrman side, he is just adding this memory study to his theme that something happened, then it was chronicled badly and embellished, etc. A much larger audience will accept that, and it has credibility. So from the article, I think is an odd statement:
What is surprising, though, is how much of the Gospels he still thinks he can accept as reasonably accurate “gist" memories, how lightly he applies his new criterion, which he primarily uses as justification for rejecting Gospel stories he long ago dismissed on other historical grounds.Ehrman is sticking with the historical consensus, that shouldn't be surprising at all. Carrier on the other hand, is attempting to change the consensus. I think he's right, but what do I know? One of the barriers to the mythicist theory is there has been a lot of really bad mythicist literature. Carrier is swimming against that tide, trying not to get stuck in that muck. This article gives an excellent summation of his work, but putting in the light of his battle with Ehrman, I don't think that helps.
I think it’s more likely than not that someone similar in some respects to the man we know as Jesus lived, had followers and was crucified. But I don’t think that’s important compared to what was made of him long after his death, by others.
For anyone who is interested, one of Canada's top magazines, "Maclean's," just published an article about whether Jesus existed or not. Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/Interesting article. Raphael Lataster recently released a book surveying the historical vs mysticist debate. Check it out: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Did-Not-Exist-Atheists/dp/1514814420/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459457051&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+did+not+exist