Notice that I only mentioned that the words attributed to Jesus were not necessarily his own. I grant that it is more likely than unlikely that there was a real person at the heart of the myth.
Are you inferring I protest too much? If so, not so. You actually inferred the opposite when you wrote:
“You are assuming that it is a given there was first century Jew walking around doing and saying everything that is attributed to Him…that assumption is misplaced. Was there a historical Jesus in one form or another? quite possibly. Did he walk on water, or claim to be the son of God? Not as likely.”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…For a man God, such extraordinary evidence should be easy to produce.
The evidence is in the Gospels and in the lives of his apostles and in the response from the people who heard him and saw and knew him who followed after. What evidence would you suggest could exist that would satisfy you?
Instead, we get what we would expect from a mythological figure or from my flying grandpa.
You get a record of his life and teachings, accounts of his miracles, an empty tomb and the testimony of his generation by virtue of their response to these claims and occurrences.
This whole thread is very C.S Lewis-ish. I was not aware the Tolkien also dabbled in theology.
I suspect most people contemplating the potential reality of Christ come to these questions, though Lewis did a better job of refining the arguments. The True Myth came from Tolkien. I include an excerpt from a fine piece by Joseph Pierce:
“Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.
Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion. “
The Gospel passes itself as the testimony of Jesus’ disciples. Even an editor with half a brain would remove any mention of future events. Is this really proof of their authenticity?
I'm sorry, but didn't you earlier decide that the authors weren't even pretending to be the disciples? So which is it or does it depend on which you need to meet a given objection? To my mind you're talking about the eventual transcription of a near account. Given that you're dealing with a people who understood and were adept at oral history, this is untroubling to me.
Paul never met Jesus in life, and we have to take his word that he met him. Luke (or should that be plural?), Paul's companion, is even further removed from the actual events. These two make up most of the NT.
Yes, you have to believe that Paul is telling the truth about his conversion. Though given that he threw away position and power for a life of struggle and the death of a martyr there is every reason to suspect that he was earnest in his profession, whether you think it the result of a divine visitation or a malady.
They all describe the time frame of Jesus’ life. Why would you expect them to chronicle events outside of that time frame?
Because none of them are live TV. That is, they are all writing of the past but not in the past and as such important events that would add legitimacy to the claims attributed to Jesus would be worth mentioning, if only as a post script of sorts.
I'll beg to differ. What isn't questionable is that the divinity of Christ is more unlikely than a non-divine Christ, at least according to Occam.
No, not if you accept the miracles and resurrection. And you will doubtless counter that these miracles and this resurrection are unlikely, to which I will respond not if he is the Christ…Occam does not aid either of us here.
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Actually, Christianity is a fairly unique religion...
Atonement is hardly unique, nor is an eternal life with God (or gods).
I don’t know of another religion where salvation and heaven are a gift from God that cannot be earned…I am reasonably certain that this is a unique vantage.
The idea that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself so He could forgive us because one of our ancestors ate some fruit may be unique simply because no one in his right mind would think of such a scenario.
It is unique (something you suggested was absent from Christianity) and your response is to say, well, it’s unique because it’s absurd... If that’s the best you can do it will have to, I suppose. No one in his right mind or over the age of twelve would advance the “understanding” of man’s ruin and redemption as you have, unless that person was unfamiliar with the material in question and its historical treatment.
I'll give Paul props for an excellent marketing job.
Paul’s life and death deserve better treatment. There is nothing in our accounts of him to suggest he was other than an honest and honorable man who followed his conscience and gave his life in service to the truth he knew.
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Assumptive if applied to Christ. According to the Gospels he accomplished everything that he said he would and was who he claimed to be.
That and 41 cents will buy you a postage stamp, unless you wait until May.
That and 41 cents buys you hope and absolute moral value and purpose. And you can keep the change…
If he didn't claim to be the son of God, then he wasn't delusional, which breaks out of your false dilemma.
Actually it isn’t my false dilemma. It only becomes so when
you alter the premise.
But even if he did claim to be the son of God, there is no conflict between calling him delusional and accepting many of his teachings. In other news, was Siddhartha Gautama Batty, Beguiling or Buddha?
Not that I can tell. Of course, he never claimed to be God’s son.
You aren't listening to a thing I'm saying are you. All right, then- show me this integrity and "corrobberation" that denies doubt, then. 
