Toto

But you did have a requirement that the participants believe that there was a historical Jesus.

Chris Weimer

Isn't it a bit obvious that in order to first describe the historical Jesus you would have to at least think he's real? That's no different than papers written about the composition of Q. You can't work within a particular frame of reference if you don't hold it to be true.

Loren Rosson III

That was the one condition, and for obvious reasons. I just wanted clarification as to what Magdlyn meant by the term.

Magdlyn

I disagree. Paul includes lots of biographical material about himself and his associates in his letters.

He does not say he did not care for J's life. He does seem to disdain those whom he met who we may expect to have know Jesus, or even shared DNA with him! Odd, that.

Paul is sharing the "gospel" in his letters. He says this time and again. OTOH, The Gospel of Thomas also does not contain biographical info. I do not think the distinction is that clear cut.

Magdlyn

Toto was correct. I did not mean "believers in the salvific mission of Jesus." I meant "believers in the historic Jesus."

And I also wished to point out the dubious qualifications of your group which led to biased and disappointingly unimaginative opinions.

Magdlyn

Hardly. Many of the Jesus Mythers or agnostics here would be well able to describe the historical Jesus as depicted in the Bible. I could even also describe him as depicted in the non-canonical lit!

I can also describe Santa Claus.

Chris Weimer

But no one there was describing the Jesus depicted in the Bible. That's a strawman plain and through.

Santa Claus is actually a great example. Neither Santa Claus nor the Jesus of the Bible existed, however we all can describe them easily. But what we're trying to get at is the historical figure behind it - the historical Jesus and the historical Saint Nicholas.

Chris Weimer

It's so easy to snipe when you can't actually put up an argument, isn't it?

Because Paul needed to verify himself. He doesn't need to verify Jesus - he writes to people who already believe.

That he disregards those who met him seems quite obvious to me that he is implying that the life of Jesus is of no importance, but his death and resurrection, triumphing over the flesh, is of great importance.

Gospel means "good news". Nothing more, nothing less. It does not imply in any way shape or form a narrative or biographical information of Jesus.

For Paul, the gospel was Jesus' death and resurrection, which he does mention. For Thomas...well, we're still trying to figure that one out.

Vorkosigan

What dubious qualifications? Everyone in it is at least a longtime student of the issues, and some are published scholars.

"Qualifications" don't lead to opinions, Magdlyn.

Vorkosigan

Magdlyn

How so? One of the conclusions was "the gospels are a good way to get to Jesus." Are you telling me they used other sources to learn about Jesus? Why were

There is no other historical record or (non-forged) outside evidence of Jesus, just theological tracts and 3rd hand "traditions".