aa5874

I have identified your modus operandi so I will NEVER EVER Ignore you. You seem to have manipulated the term "historical Jesus" to include the Jesus of Faith--the Resurrected Jesus.

First of all, it must be understood that the "historical Jesus" does NOT merely mean the belief that Jesus did exist. After all people of antiquity and even today believe Jesus existed as the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Please tell us exactly what you mean when you refer to the "historical Jesus"??

A resurrected being is a Myth so please do not argue for an "historical Jesus".

The NT Canon as found in the Existing Codices do NOT support an historical Jesus and that is PRECISELY why there is a QUEST--a massive search by Scholars--to find an human Jesus for the LAST 250 years.

No human Jesus has been found up to now.

Christians and HJers are now using the very NT which is admittedly about a Divine non-historical Jesus and have REVERSED themselves and are now claiming the NT is really about an historical Jesus if we TAMPER with the evidence [discard all evidence for the Jesus of Faith].

This is UNHEARD of. The history of the historical Jesus would NOT be derived from credible sources of antiquity but from IMAGINATION and CHERRY-PICKING.

HJers and Christians now want to tell people that gMark's Jesus was human when we can see with our OWN eyes that in gMark Jesus was IDENTIFIED as the Son of God that walked on water and transfigured.

Christians and HJers now want to tell people that the Pauline Jesus was human when we can see with our OWN eyes in Galatians that the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was NOT human and was the Son of God.

Something is radically wrong with the statements of Christians and HJers. They appear to be desparate.

The NT Canon is a non-heretical compilation of the Church that condemned the Heresy that Jesus was human with a human father.

Justin Martyr's "First Apology" Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" Origen's "De Principiis" For hundreds of years the NT represented a DIVINE Jesus now all of a sudden the very people looking for THEIR unknown Jesus are using the very source that cause the QUEST.

This is a MASSIVE Double Standard.

HJers and Christians will DISCREDIT the NT and simultaneously RELY on the same NT and do so Without any corroboration.

The HJ argument is most illogical and baseless.

The NT Canon from the Existing Codices with Apologetic sources support a Divine-non-historical Jesus.

it was born of a virgin and the holy spirit.

See Origen's De Principiis

GakuseiDon

Right. So these are Christians who believed that Jesus walked the earth, but nonetheless were not concerned about historical details about Jesus.

So, that being the case, does the Shepherd of Hermas fall into this category?

EmmaZunz

No I don't think that's what he is saying.

Nor me.

There was obviously a lot going on in early Xianity that had no connection to an HJ.

I agree that we have reached the point where scholars can start to accept that and work thru the implications. I.e. the true sources of Xianity, and the history of the reception of the Gospels into pre-existing Xianities.

Toto

Why do you type "right" and then go on to post something at odds with what I posted? We don't seem to have reached any sort of agreement.

I don't think that there were early Christians who thought that Jesus had walked the earth in recent time, or who thought that they could discover anything about his earthly existence. They might have thought that he walked the earth in some mythical time or manner, but then why would that lead them to look for actual evidence?

That is not the case.

GakuseiDon

Sigh. And how is that "at odds" with what I posted? (If you want me to differentiate you with Dave31, then you need to stop replying like him. Like Dave31, you appear to be determined to disagree with me without even reading what I am writing.)

Toto

I posted, and you quoted me as posting, that there were early Christians who thought that "the crucifixion of Jesus happened in some other plane of existence in mythical time and space."

So how do you get from that to your obsession "Right. So these are Christians who believed that Jesus walked the earth, but nonetheless were not concerned about historical details about Jesus." ???

Wrong. These are Christians who did not believe that they could locate any historical or geographical details about Jesus. Why would they be concerned about historical details?

Do you even read what I write?

GakuseiDon

Yes, but I'm not asking "Were there early Christians who thought that "the crucifixion of Jesus happened in some other plane of existence in mythical time and space"? So what is the point of that response?

Because that is what I am asking.

If they believed that they couldn't locate any historical or geographical details about Jesus, then they wouldn't.

Yes. One of us has to.

My point here has nothing to do with MJ/HJ at this time, but whether we have examples of Christians who thought that Christ walked the earth but were not interested in historical details. In the other thread, you wrote (my bold):

"Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus."

Do you think Barnabas provides an example of Christians who believed that Jesus walked the earth, but nonetheless were not concerned in historical details?

aa5874

Again, the historical Jesus is NOT merely the Belief Jesus walked on earth. People of Antiquity believed Satan walked on earth and that the Angel Gabriel was on earth in Nazareth of Galilee talking to Mary.

Please, you must realize that people of antiquity BELIEVED Heavenly characters existed. People of antiquity and even today BELIEVE the Myth characters called ADAM and EVE existed, walked the face of the earth and died.

Even Christians today BELIEVE the Myth Fable that Cain murdered Abel.

You are manipulating the term historical Jesus to include the existence of a DIVINE Jesus that is claimed to have walked on water, talked, died, resurrected and ascended.

Please, It was already established that the NT is about the EXISTENCE of a DIVINE Jesus--Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Please, join the QUEST and you may find YOUR Jesus in your Imagination.

It is absurd and illogical that the belief that Jesus existed makes him a figure of history. Christians and Apologetic sources believe Satan and the Angel Gabriel actually exist and were Eye-balled in the 1st century.

Toto

Why then did you pick out that from my response as if you were replying to that part in particular?

The sands keep shifting. I have stated what I think early Christians like Barnabas thought - that Christ manifested himself on earth in some sense. Perhaps he walked, perhaps he floated slightly above the ground.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you say that these Christians thought that Jesus walked on earth, but were not concerned about historical details. Why would that be interesting? What conclusion would you draw from that?

GakuseiDon

Thank you...

Barnabas believed that Jesus came in the flesh, which kind of rules out a docetic Christ. He also wrote that Jesus taught, performed miracles and selected apostles, without appearing to be aware of Gospel details. But we already have a thread on Barnabas, so I'll continue over there.

Doherty believes that there is some kind of transition period from MJ to HJ, where the Christians believe in a Jesus who manifested on earth, but aren't concerned or unaware of the details. That is the tension point I'm addressing here.

The next step is looking at the implications for other early literature, and then judiciously applying Occam's razor. What other early writings fall into this category? What ones don't? How can we decide? etc.

Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.