How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Even though many or even most modern scholars think JC was an historical person, few of them believe he performed miracles or was resurrected from the dead. If we strip away all of the hyperbolic content from the JC in the gospels, there is a possibility Jesus existed as a mortal man. Surely few or none among secular Xian scholars believe in the miracle-working JC.

So when scholars say they believe they believe in an historical JC, we must ask exactly what they mean by an historical JC.

Until we can properly define our terms, we shall have endless misunderstandings and ambiguities in our discussions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So when scholars say they believe they believe in an historical JC, we must ask exactly what they mean by an historical JC.

OK ...

.... and?

 

[fallingblood]

Even though many or even most modern scholars think JC was an historical person, few of them believe he performed miracles or was resurrected from the dead. If we strip away all of the hyperbolic content from the JC in the gospels, there is a possibility Jesus existed as a mortal man. Surely few or none among secular Xian scholars believe in the miracle-working JC.

So when scholars say they believe they believe in an historical JC, we must ask exactly what they mean by an historical JC.

Until we can properly define our terms, we shall have endless misunderstandings and ambiguities in our discussions.

That is actually a problem for every historical person. Look at how the view of Abraham Lincoln has greatly changed within scholarly circles, as well as the debates on the subject. That is simply part of the historical process.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

OK ...

.... and?

In other words, we need to ask what they actually mean by an "historical Jesus". Do they mean an historical Jesus that worked miracles or a Jesus who was a mortal human being? I doubt that most HJer's believed in a miracle-working Jesus. What do you think?

 

[fallingblood]

In other words, we need to ask what they actually mean by an "historical Jesus". Do they mean an historical Jesus that worked miracles or a Jesus who was a mortal human being? I doubt that most HJer's believed in a miracle-working Jesus. What do you think?

The problem then is that you haven't read much on the subject. For scholars, when talking about the historical Jesus, they are talking about the mortal man. That is the historical Jesus. The Jesus who actually lived, the flesh and blood man.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you think?

I think you should read more and instruct less.

 

[steeltoes]

Historian Richard Carrier claims that Earl Doherty presents a reasonable case for a mythical Jesus in Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle, Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?

 

[savagewind]

Any thing is possible. No? What is NOT possible? (troll thjoughjt)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Historian Richard Carrier claims that Earl Doherty presents a reasonable case for a mythical Jesus in Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle, Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?

Therefore?

 

[oldbadger]

Even though many or even most modern scholars think JC was an historical person, few of them believe he performed miracles or was resurrected from the dead. If we strip away all of the hyperbolic content from the JC in the gospels, there is a possibility Jesus existed as a mortal man. Surely few or none among secular Xian scholars believe in the miracle-working JC.

So when scholars say they believe they believe in an historical JC, we must ask exactly what they mean by an historical JC.

Until we can properly define our terms, we shall have endless misunderstandings and ambiguities in our discussions.

OK. Let's try again on this thread. For starters, do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that Elijah went off in a chariot of fire? Do you believe in the parting of the waters of the Red Sea for Moses?

Let's start right there. Do you believe in any miracles?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would staying on topic be considered a minor miracle?

 

[fallingblood]

Historian Richard Carrier claims that Earl Doherty presents a reasonable case for a mythical Jesus in Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle, Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?

And Bart Erhman in his book Did Jesus Exist refuted Doherty. In fact, most historians and scholars reject the Christ-myth idea.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

OK. Let's try again on this thread. For starters, do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that Elijah went off in a chariot of fire? Do you believe in the parting of the waters of the Red Sea for Moses?

Let's start right there. Do you believe in any miracles?

No, I certainly do not believe in miracles.

 

[oldbadger]

Historian Richard Carrier claims that Earl Doherty presents a reasonable case for a mythical Jesus in Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle, Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?

Hi Steeltoes...!

Yes, Christianity could have started with a mythical Christ, it could have.

But........ that is nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a historical Jesus.

A Christ is something Greek, Jesus was an Aramaic speaking Galilean. He probably did not know that word. Words! Did he know the name Peter? Where did that come from?

The few scholars that I have read have been very..... diplomatic .... about all this. They have attributed most unhistorical claims or reports down to 'evangelistic tradition'(E.T.?). I will follow their shrewd example.

I don't want to upset any person's faith, belief or tenets. I just want to strip away the E.T. in order to try to perceive something of this extraordinary man's life. In my opinion he was a great credit to the working-class Galilean Jews of his day, and a special part of Jewish history. His own did not kill him..... that was down to a crowd of semi-Jewish people. I'm not sure if I would be allowed to call them half-castes. Jesus was pure Galilean Jewish.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I certainly do not believe in miracles.

That was quick!

I tell you what..... neither do I.

Where do we go from here?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

The problem then is that you haven't read much on the subject. For scholars, when talking about the historical Jesus, they are talking about the mortal man. That is the historical Jesus. The Jesus who actually lived, the flesh and blood man.

I beg your pardon! I have read plenty and do not presume to tell me I have not done so.

Once you eliminate the gospel Jesus (according to Federal rules of evidence that exclude any doc with contradictions. . . and common sense), you are left with a pacifist Jesus of which there is no non-Xian historical record.

 

[fallingblood]

I beg your pardon! I have read plenty and do not presume to tell me I have not done so.

Once you eliminate the gospel Jesus (according to Federal rules of evidence that exclude any doc with contradictions. . . and common sense), you are left with a pacifist Jesus of which there is no non-Xian historical record.

Why would the Federal rules of evidence have anything to do with this? This is not a court of law, it is history. The field of history does not abide by the Federal rule of evidence as it has nothing to do with history.

As for you having read plenty, if that is true, you should not need a definition of what is meant by the Historical Jesus. You also shouldn't be quoting the federal rules for evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

Once you eliminate the gospel Jesus (according to Federal rules of evidence that exclude any doc with contradictions. . . and common sense), you are left with a pacifist Jesus of which there is no non-Xian historical record.

So you feel the need to use 'Judge's rules' in this matter?

Many weeks ago I asked you about filing the various reports of Jesus into 'Certain', 'Probable', 'Possible', 'Improbable' and 'Impossible' boxes. You never replied.

How could you have, if you insist on using 'Judge's Rules'?

I intend to use those (1st three) boxes, above, to build as much of a picture as I can. But I'm doing it for me..... and atheists.
I want to be able to talk about Jesus to Atheists and Agnostics in a way that they won't 'reject out of hand'.

Why? I don't know...... Jesus has grown on me over these last few months.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Why would the Federal rules of evidence have anything to do with this? This is not a court of law, it is history. The field of history does not abide by the Federal rule of evidence as it has nothing to do with history.

As for you having read plenty, if that is true, you should not need a definition of what is meant by the Historical Jesus. You also shouldn't be quoting the federal rules for evidence.

Rules of evidence govern common sense, and common sense should govern the search for accurate accounts of history. And alleged "historical accounts" of Jesus that contain numerous contradictions cannot be admitted into evidence. Therefore the gospels are a spurious source for both a mortal and/or immortal Jesus.

I asked for a definition of the Historical Jesus simply to be sure we are all on the same page.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

So you feel the need to use 'Judge's rules' in this matter?

Many weeks ago I asked you about filing the various reports of Jesus into 'Certain', 'Probable', 'Possible', 'Improbable' and 'Impossible' boxes. You never replied.

How could you have, if you insist on using 'Judge's Rules'?

I intend to use those (1st three) boxes, above, to build as much of a picture as I can. But I'm doing it for me..... and atheists.
I want to be able to talk about Jesus to Atheists and Agnostics in a way that they won't 'reject out of hand'.

Why? I don't know...... Jesus has grown on me over these last few months.

Well, sorry, I don't always have the time to notice and/or answer every respondent.

But if you restate your question, I will answer it.