It rests on a complete network of facts for each of us, Percy, not just this piece of evidence or that piece. All together the evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ is enormous. I've mentioned a few pieces. You shoot them down. But it's the whole picture, the many believers, the inspired writings, the martyrdoms of the early church, the way the New Testament reads etc etc etc -- if you don't see it you don't see it.
This is the way a world view works and I think you've expressed it poignantly. This world view has denominations and shades into conflicts with related world views such as Judaism and Islam or more distant world views such as Hinduism and Buddhism among others.
A world view is bound intimately with a person's experience of themselves and their world. The scientific rational world view has been developing and in the west challenging the dominant Christian world view that held sway in European Culture (I included the USA as it's dominant culture(s) are European based.)
What you are describing is the way that a world view is consistent and congruent with itself. It's the way the brain organizes meaning for itself. The apologists for Christianity, or any other religion are demonstrating how the brain explains away incongruences in order to establish consistency relieving cognitive dissonance.
The rational scientific approach which btw I don't think is the only valid approach to life requires an individual to have a way to bear the stress of ambiguity and contradiction within the body of their world view. Religious world views externalize the contradiction and seal it off. The problem of the existence of evil is "explained" by the story of the fall. That story still doesn't really explain away the problem but if accepted in faith then the problem is pushed way to the edges of awareness and the conflict doesn't cause as much stress. It appears to have been taken care of, relieved by faith. This can be psychologically a protective and healthy strategy.
The story of Jesus and Christianity told by the church is the story of the development of a world view.
The question of the historical Jesus, historical Christianity, or the historical church is a rational, evidential inquiry to what was going on that was assimilated to that world view.
There is simply insufficient evidence to firmly support either the mythical Jesus or historical Jesus hypothesis. So we examine what literal evidence we have hoping more will come to light or that new ways of looking at it will reveal something.
Earl Doherty's mythicist analysis of Paul addresses many odd things about the epistles that we possess today. Paul's Christ was overwelmingly and perhaps even entirely mystical. A being in a "higher" realm with scant references to a physical human life. This being was overwelming percieved as you and Phat still percieve him in "spirit". The contradictions in the gospels point to an after the fact attempt to place this mystical being in the physical world as a human.
Doherty argues that Mark was performing a midrash on the scriptures in order to further understand the mystical Jesus.
I'm not convinced by Doherty or the Historicists. The quality and quantity of documents is simply too poor. The times were in great flux and the origins of religion are very hard to document. Take any modern religion, Mormonism for example or even more recent than that. There will be conflicting accounts, views, and interpretations because human beings see things differently.
Science uses agreed on quanitification if possible to over ride subjective experience so that a determination can be made that will provide a decision that all participants can agree on. The question of a historical Jesus is not a question about what millions believe as faith. It is a question about what if any EVIDENCE exists that an individual lived and taught about that time, around that place. It's not about the legends, myths, beliefs that later arose. The counter example of King Arthur is often used. Was there an actual individual whose exploits formed the core of the legend or was it sheer story telling.
Was there an actual human being that influeced Paul's religious beliefs or did Paul have "mystical" experiences and those experiences were later clothed in scripturally derived stories about a man. I know how you will find on this question. This thread is asking what is good evidence, what is forged or ambibuous evidence that supports or contradicts these positions.
lfen
™ Version 4.2
