spamandham

I don't think they did, but that's the typical thinking of those who claim there was a historical core.

If you want to carry the ball for Elijah and explain how a nobody peasant who went unnoticed by his contemporaries came to be revered as a god later on, you're welcome to do so.

Jeffrey Gibson

It is? Could you be more specific? Who among, say, the more prominent HJ scholars who claim there was an historical core, "think" the way you say is "typical" of those who claim a historical core?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

Since Paul apparently regarded Jesus as of Davidic descent it is unlikely that he thought him of Priestly ancestry.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

Paul's ideas were not orthodox by his own admission. Paul's ideas don't need to be consistent with anything. He was a nut.

Elijah

There isn’t insufficient evidence if there is only one likely possibility.
So you have two gods and two historical figures? Is there a hero’s biography from the time and area you could provide as a sample? You never answered what makes Jesus a hero story?
I’m saying the most likely scenario is a historical core not a mythical origin. How much of the Gospels is historic or accurate is debatable.
The assessment is based on no competing ideas or evidence otherwise. Why do you think him more than working class?

spamandham

I'm not aware of any advanced degrees in HJ by acredited universities, so you can understand why I have no awareness of what typical HJ scholars claim - prominent or otherwise.

If you review the thread, I think you'll agree the discussion had nothing to do with the claims of HJ scholars. The context is a discussion between Elijah and myself.

spamandham

You're position isn't likely, because it has large unanswered holes in it. All you've done is to start by assuming the gospels were intended as historical records, subtracted the magic parts while ignoring the significance of the vast symbolism therein, and declared some subset of what's left to be likely. There is not aspect of this approach that's valid.

That information is readily available via google, and I already gave you the best still applicable summary of the scholarly concensus on the genre. Since I can't even get you to admit the absurdity of a historical Adam, I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your homework for you. If you have an interest in real history rather than quackery, take the initiative.

I gave you a reference for the detailed analysis, and explained in very general terms the similarity between the gospels and period hero biographies for other characters. Do some legwork if you want to have an informed position.

There's no evidence to support your idea within Paul or the earliest Gospel, Mark, so you didn't derive the peasant idea from these. A general hand waving "it fits the evidence" isn't very interesting. Do you agree you've given no real thought to this at all?

Elijah

History is filled with lots of unanswered holes doesn’t mean history is unlikely.

I’m going with the most likely scenario based on the evidence I’ve been given. If you don’t like that method then go with what you feel will work for you.
Nice cop out. This isn’t about me doing homework but about you being able to support your position.

I’m asking for the evidence of your position. The textual evidence of why you think Jesus is a hero story. And still why you think Jesus is a hero story? That shouldn’t take any effort on your part at all.
Yea actually I have gave this some thought. You? If so what thinking made you come to the conclusion he was of some noble class?

Jeffrey Gibson

Who said anything about advanced degrees in HJ from anywhere?

Leaving aside the matter that the above is a non sequitur, who said anything about "typical HJ scholars"? The issue was whether your claim about what those who hold to a historical core "typically think" is in any way informed. Apparently it isn't.

But it is about what those who hold to an historical core "typically think". And HJ scholars are among those who hold to an historical core. So please show me that they do indeed "typically think" the way you claim they do.

The context is a claim you made about what those who hold to a historical core "typically think". Can you provide some evidence for your claim or not?
How do you know that it is so?

Jeffrey

Didymus

Good conclusion; faulty logic.