No, and no. 
there are no facts listed in your link. there are what some historians “view” as a fact. which, is not the same as something being a fact.
Thanks for sharing.
Why the attitude? You made a claim about 2 “widely accepted facts”, neither of which is, in actuality, a fact.
He wrote historical facts. For persons not ideologically motivated by a True Belief this is clear enough.
what?
I’m with Jaywalker on this exchange. Though probably he does think they’re probably facts, in context, the thrust of his post was not to assert them as facts but to use their status in the scholarly community to argue against the claim that biblical scholars are biased towards the supernatural.
Now… as far as I know no one here had actually claimed there was that bias in particular! But it’s not a horrible straw-man to think that’s what they meant, just a probable misinterpretation.
But they are neither:
1- Facts
2- Widely accepted as facts
Yes, it is a straw man, since virtually all scholars, including thearticle he cited, agree that miracles are outside the scope of historical investigation.
In verifying that his cite contained that, I noticed it also contained this:
“A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by “specific agendas” that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.”
That goes much, much farther than my rather modest claim of unconscious bias, which he found contemptible, so I can only conclude that Jaywalker finds his own cite beneath contempt.
The quote continues:
“By the 21st century the “maximalist” approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the Gospels and the “minimalist” trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.” I note that while that may seem exonerating, it actually says nothing about bias or lack of it.
We only have the names of a couple of them. Josephus does call them “his brethren”.
Back several pages, I cited and posted ""the members of the Sanhedrin be chosen from people of unbroken descent, as in the case of all positions of authority, … It is preferable that the Sanhedrin contain Kohen-priests and Levites as members. It is thus written, “You shall come to the Kohen-priest and Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days”
Aish
Again, thanks for sharing.
(I can hardly wait to broach the Exodus. :))
Fire? 
Well, yeah. As a non-believer in the religion, it is my opinion that the Bible story we have is a mythologizing of actual events.
Because I believe different parts of the story we now have were inserted at different time-periods – as often happens in the process of myth-making.
A mundane story of a preacher’s life (who may have performed some “miracles” of the placebo-effect or slight-of-hand variety) has transmuted, over some time, into a story surrounded by “signs and portents” that would have been reasonably familiar to any story-teller of the day - and that make his story that much more dramatic, interesting, supernatural and impressive.
The hero dies, and a sudden storm rises; lighting strikes. This is hardly an unfamiliar literary trope. The dead rising is only a bit more extreme.
So take a reasonably mundane story of a “miracle-working” preacher (we know some contemporary rivals existed - like Simon the Magician): that explains the initial group of followers, the genesis of the story. Cook for a few decades of oral transmission. As actual memories of the events fade, new details are added; the “miracles” become a lot more miraculous - and indeed, new ones get attached to the figure (Paul miraculously sees Jesus years later, as an example); his death becomes enveloped in “signs and portents” (that, by the way, vary depending on the ‘tradition’ - exactly as one would expect from such a thing).
In summary, the Jesus story has the signs of classic mythologizing - a true “base story” solidly converted into myth, with the addition of details connecting it to an earlier mythological tradition (for example, retrofitting his biography to make him eligible for messiah-dom), and adding “signs and portents” surrounding his life and death.
One would predict that the more fantastical the detail, it was either viewed by very few (for example, his resurrection!), or was a later addition, after actual living memory had mostly or totally faded (the walking dead in Jerusalem). Obviously, no-one would have brought up that detail within a few years of the event, because it would then have been easily disproved.
Thanks for clarifying; I can’t find anything I disagree with in what you wrote.
The “you can get away with more if it’s longer ago” thing especially agrees with what we see in the Gospels. At the end of his life, Jesus evidently has less than 20 followers, even if you count his mom and his girlfriend. This, after allegedly being endorsed by John the Baptist, raising the dead, walking on water, attracting large crowds to hear his preaching and feeding the 5000 and the 4000, etc. After doing all that, he is essentially unknown, except as a convicted blasphemer.
Contrast that with the tales of his infancy, when he had choirs of angels telling all the shepherds to go see him, Magi traveling from afar to give him rich gifts, Herod going nuts trying to kill him, the holy denizens of the Temple proclaiming his Messiah-hood, etc. All that, when all he had done was soil his diapers.
What’s more, although the Gospels disagree on the details of what happened the Sunday after the crucifixion, one thing they do agree on is that his disciples didn’t believe he had risen until they had seen him with their own eyes – even though their best friends swore to it, and even though other risen saints were allegedly wandering around Jerusalem at the same time.
I think we should follow their example.
I would agree with the recent summaries but with one important caveat.
The Gospels have several consistent stories of healing. Healing is not central to Christian idealogy, yet it is emphasized. The historic Jesus, whatever his other attributes, had distinctive abilities to heal.
Um…no. He had 12 guys who followed him around constantly as he wandered. Others would have been occupied with the whole having-a-job-and-home-and-family thing. Remember, most of the people he was preaching to were subsistence-level.
I may be wrong, but I thought people took off work and went to Jerusalem for Passover. If even those 9000 people who were miraculously fed were around the cross weeping and wailing, you would think it would have been mentioned.
Matthew 26:56 says all his disciples deserted Jesus when he was arrested, and of course Judas betrayed him and Peter actively denied him, so I think I’m generous to include them. The only other people mentioned as unambiguously still devoted to him at his death are a couple of women relatives who prepared spices for his body, and Joseph of Arimathea who provided a tomb. Simon of Cyrene appears to have been an innocent bystander, and others are mentioned as watching the crucifixion from a distance, but without any comment on their motives. The gospels do make several mentions of spectators mocking him immediately before and during the crucifixion, so it’s not safe to assume that anyone watching was devoted to him, and it’s plausible that some people who had previously followed him were feeling pretty stupid when they saw their hoped-for Messiah, who was supposed to drive the Romans out of Israel, being executed like a common criminal.
Of course, if you can cite any verses that say he still had tons of followers at the time he was executed, I’ll be happy to read them.
I don’t see how you can say healing wasn’t central to Christianity, since the Gospels were among the founding documents of Christianity. By definition, whatever they emphasized was important. I also note that healing was one of several magical powers that believers in Jesus are supposed to have (Mark 16:18, although its authenticity is disputed).
And it seems to me that since healing powers are incorporated into myths all over the world, including in the Hebrew Bible (where both Elijah and Elisha allegedly raised the dead), and since faith healing was the easiest “miracle” to fake before cards were invented, it’s not surprising at all to see accounts of healing to bolster divine credentials.
You think the whole nation just up and crowded into a single city every year? It was almost certainly more like the Hajj, where “Every able-bodied adult Muslim who can afford to do so is required to make Hajj at least once in his or her lifetime.”
No doubt a few did, but why would a significant number of his followers manage it that particular year? It’s not like anybody else was expecting him to die.
And I’m not claiming ten thousand followers. Mythologized events typically have numbers multiplied by 7, 10, 12 or some other “sacred” number. Claiming it was merely the named disciples strikes me as foolish, however.