Diogenes the Cynic

And yet you allege factual errors. On what basis?
This is a tendentious and academically erroneous assertion. In point of fact, a historical Jesus can be defined without any reference to the New Testament at all.

Scotsguy44

But the question is surely a historical question and not of the Jesus relevant to Christianity? In fact, on that historical question all of the most important aspects to Christianity are shaved off via methodological naturalism and the remaining question is 'behind the NT and other extra-biblical documents' was there a real historical person called Jesus or is the character an invention from whole cloth?

Matt

maryhelena

I've alleged no "factual errors"...........?? If you reread my post to which you originally referenced, post #218, you will find no mention whatsoever of Bart Ehrman. Heavens alive - I give up....................:banghead:

JonA

Highly unlikely that crucifixion would be a choice embellishment in a story that is supposed to be about a Jewish king come to whoop some Roman ass.

What is very interesting is that if any early Christians believed Jesus to have existed only in a spiritual realm, they were really good at not saying this and instead acting as though he had existed on Earth.

Where is the evidence that stories of Jesus the dying and resurrected Jewish messiah were circulating before roughly the second half of the first century?

Any evidence at all? Or is this just uneducated guesswork?

Jon

maryhelena

That is nothing less than wishful thinking. The historical question regarding early christian origins is separate from the gospel JC story. The question of the historicity of the gospel JC figure rests upon finding historical evidence to support that NT gospel figure. These are two separate and very different issues. One is to search for historical evidence for a character within the NT gospel story. The other is to put that story aside and consider the relevant historical time period. And from the history that can be determined, one can look for circumstances that could have generated what we know today as christianity.

Scotsguy44

I'm of the view (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the historical method by application of methodological naturalism shaves off any supernatural elements in the subject matter. If that is correct then there is no historical inquiry into the Jesus Christ of the NT because that is equal to an inquiry into that which has already been shaved off - the supernatural elements. That then reduces itself to historical inquiry as to whether or not the character(s) referred to in the NT are more probably than not historical or more probably than not mythical. As I understand the HJ/MH debate that is the issue and not whether everything claimed for Jesus happened or did not happen. The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate.

Matt

maryhelena

It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here. It's the gospel JC story, in and off itself. It is pure assumption to maintain that by taking away all the mythological elements that a normal flesh and blood Jesus lies underneath.

Yes, great if NT scholars think that a historical figure was relevant to the gospel JC story. I think so myself. However, a crucified nobody carpenter preacher guy is an impossibility to find historical evidence for - hence the idea is a dead-end. Which, of course, is where all the searching for such a figure presently lies. Historicists need to make the jump from a nobody carpenter preacher to historical figures; figures whose historicity is established. Which means they need to put the gospel JC figure aside and look to history for historical figures that could have inspired that gospel JC story to be written.

Scotsguy44

1. What is the distinction between my statement, 'The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate' and your statement, 'It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here'?
2. I made no reference to 'mythological elements', but to supernatural elements and the methodology I outlined is applied to every piece of ancient literature by historians.
3. Why is it impossible to find historical evidence for the man Jesus, indeed why is the NT and other extra-biblical sources that refer to that man not historical prima facie evidence for the man Jesus and that on the basis that 'there simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the
mere existence of a man named Jesus'. (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html)

Matt

Diogenes the Cynic

So you do think there was a historical Jesus, you just don't want to call him that.

Every person who has ever lived has lived historically, by the way. A "nobody carpenter" is no less historical for being a nobody.

You are making a mistake in trying to tether a the hypothetical object of a historically documented personality cult foundational to the Christian religion to the mythologized character of the New Testament.

We don't need any reference to the NT at all. we don't have to define Jesus as anything more than how he is described by Tacitus.

It's also clearly not "impossible to find evidence for." There is a great deal of independent attestation for a historically crucified Galilean preacher at the heart of Christian origins.

maryhelena

None that I can see....

So?

How long has this search for the crucified nobody carpenter been going on? And what are the results? Zero.

If people want to believe that the gospel JC, of whatever variety, was a real flesh and blood figure - so be it. If they want to claim historicity for that figure they have to produce evidence. There is none.