Onias

Previously I had asked if there was any historical basis for a militant Jesus.

Another approach is to ask if there is any basis for a pacifist JC.

Keep in mind that any historical JC, militant or pacifist, would not be a miracle worker. So let's keep this analysis REAL.

If we strip away the miracles and other hyperbole of the gospel JC, can we find any historical person who might approximate the less than miraculous but pacifist Jesus Christ?

Does any historian of the era mention a possible candidate? Does any coin refer to a peaceful messiah (in case Mary Helena is listening)?
Onias

maryhelena

Philip, Tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
4 BC – 34 AD

aa5874

You cannot strip away the history of Jesus.

You cannot strip away the Biography of Jesus of Nazareth.

Who in antiquity wrote about a Pacifist Jesus that did no miracles?

NOBODY.

A Pacifist Jesus cannot be recovered from any writing of antiquity.

The story of Jesus of Nazareth is that he performed miracles.

The story of Simon Magus is that he did mighty acts by Magic.

Can we strip away the magical acts of Simon Magus?

Can we strip away the Biography of Simon Magus?

Simon Magus is identified as a Magician in antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth is identified by Apologetics as one who performed miracles.

We can only look for the Jesus as described--NOT as imagined.

The PACIFIST Jesus is an invention--fiction--based on the Mythology in the NT.

Sheshbazzar

Both God and Jesus are made out of Silly-Putty.™ Everyone shapes and stretches their Silly-Putty™ JesusGod in any direction or manner they wish.
They plop their Silly Putty™ JesusGod down on funny-book pictures and writings, and amazingly he picks up the imprint, which they then can stretch and distort in whatever ways they wish.

Left alone for a bit, Silly Putty™ Jesus God turns back into the Biblical JesusGod amorphous blob
The next day they pick up their gob of Silly Putty™ JesusGod and begin all over again.

Have fun with your Silly Putty, children

Onias

aa,
First of all, we know that the NT has been redacted again and again as evidenced by variation between copies and by textual criticism. So it is reasonable to suppose that the earliest versions of the NT (now lost) were different from the extant manuscripts. Just like a fish story, tales tend to be embellished over time and each retelling. Think of how we were taught as children that George Washington never told a lie (as I recall in reference to a cherry tree he cut down). There are many other examples of how mortal men are glorified after their death such as Roman Emperors who were deified after their death, etc.

Secondly, do you really think that Bart Ehrman and other non-religious bible scholars who believe in an historical JC also believe in his miracles and other hyperbole?

aa5874

Why do you presume the original story is lost or was fundamentally different than those that have been recovered.

We cannot examine presumed lost writings.

Let us examine what has been FOUND.

Let us examine the Extant manuscripts because perhaps they will make us know what the original story was.

If it was a lie that George Washington cut down a cherry then we cannot presume he cut down some other unknown tree of which nobody wrote about.

If it was a lie that Jesus did exist then we cannot presume he existed as some unknown person about whom we have no data.

Effectively, if Jesus of Nazareth was NOT the product of a Ghost and a Virgin then we don't know who he was.

In other words, the Jesus cult worshiped a character who had no history.

If Jesus of Nazareth has no history then certainly we cannot identify him.

All we know is that the Jesus cult worshiped a character who was the Son of a God, born of a Ghost, a Sea Water Walker before he transfigured and resurrected.
Bart Ehrman's "historica"l Jesus of Nazareth is a product of Mythology found in the Bible.

If Satan the Devil was stripped then Satan may look like the Angel Gabriel.

There is no such thing as an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible--Jesus of Nazareth was a Sea Water Walker who transfigured before he was raised from the dead.

There is no such thing as an historical Jesus of Nazareth in history--Nobody wrote about Jesus of Nazareth outside of Apologetics.

Only writers of antiquity could have stripped Jesus of Nazareth but they did NOT.

Jesus was the product of a Ghost--Nothing can be stripped.

It is most remarkable that Ehrman attempted to strip a Ghost expecting to find a man.

"Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman is probably the very worst book of all time--it is riddled with logical fallacies.

Perhaps Ehrman should have stripped Plutarch's Romulus or Remus or Adam and Eve.

I find it astonishing that people here do not get the gist of the Jesus story.

Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost--See Matthew 1 and Luke 1

1. Jesus was born after his mother was pregnant by NO-ONE.

2. The father of Jesus is NO-ONE.

3. Jesus was NOTHING.

4. Jesus was MYTH.

The NT is a compilation of Myth Fables after the Fall of the Temple with the propaganda that the Jews delivered up the Son of God to be killed.