Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Quite untrue and unscholarly to try to exclude what is written after Jesus' death from reliable sources. There are ways historians determine what is reliable or not.
Not just because you think it's unreliable. Much of history is put together after a person's death.
It was not until after Jesus' death that Christians were seen as a threat and persecuted.
If you compare Jesus to a mythological figure, you are essentially saying he did not exist. You need to make up your mind about that.
Jesus was not famous in his lifetime, but after he was considered martyred, this had a profound effect on his followers. As did his reputation for healing and his remarkable teachings.
Myth theory will not rise or fall in the future. It has been overwhelmingly debunked.”
Just more conjecture there. His reputation for healing and apparent teachings (which are also contested amongst scholars) - again, written after his death.
No, I didn't say Jesus didn't exist, you just decided that's what I meant. That's your hang-up, not mine.
It's not me who determined what's reliable, it's what historians deem reliable. Surely you're aware of historical bias? Things written after the events can't be considered totally reliable. Hence why there's no universal conclusion on Jesus's life.
Yes, history is jigsawed together after death, but usually, with primary sources from the event/lifetime. When your primary sources are written many, many decades later, it can't be considered evident, or totally reliable, only plausible or implausible. This really isn't hard to understand - it's basic.
The Jesus story is also corrupted due to centuries of believing gospels to be historically accurate - we now believe this (well, most sane people) not to be the case.
As for your last sentence, you can't say that with any certainty. Like Science, what we know of history often changes.
As for being famous post-death, well, plenty of legendary stories and characters are created this way, even those based on real people. Doesn't mean such things attributed to them actually happened. A lot of our history - especially to do with monarchs, etc, are entrenched with legendary stories that are widely believed but are most likely embellishments or myths.
You can continue to argue all you want, but it is moot - which is why you rely on nitpicking silly things like "comparing him to Arthur means you think this...".
It's basic historical scrutiny. But no doubt you're akin to that as you are to science - pick the bits you like and dismiss the rest.