ApostateAbe

Every historical character we know today has been warped by myth a little or a lot. If you believe in a human being who vaguely fits the profile of the New Testament Jesus and who explains the origin of Christianity, with or without a mother named Mary, with or without the stolen body, with or without the miracles, then you believe in a historical Jesus, and it is acceptable to answer "yes" to the poll.

joedad

Is that being historical?

Just because there is a real life inspiration for the character Rhett Butler doesn’t make Rhett Butler in GWTW historical - or Pegasus either for that matter...

ApostateAbe

I figure every fictional character has an "inspiration" from a real person or a set of people. A historical Jesus is someone who started as real and his character gradually evolved to become something different. The Jesus-myth theories propose a character that started as fictional and remained fictional, like Rhett Buttler. A big part of historical study is to separate the unlikely details from the accurate details, which is why critical scholars spend so much time looking at neutral statements or statements that conflict with author's interests, as well as determining authorship and so on.

Sheshbazzar

I tripped up here, rechecking the Greek it is evident that the text as we recieved it does indeed skew the phrase "Jesus the christ" into what would appear to be a joining of two "names", "Jesus + Christ".

However, "christ" is claimed to be simply the Greek equivalent of, or translation of the Hebrew term "messiah", and the term "messiah" (anointed) is used throughout the OT as a descriptive TITLE.
For instance, David was described as being "messiah", (anointed ) but that did not make the title into a proper name, "David Messiah" ne "David Christ"

Even the NT often describes Jesus as being "the christ", not in the sense of it being a proper personal name, but as a TITLE of position.
Nope, it still sounds a lot more like cussing, than any honorable name to me.

joedad

No disagreement that all fiction is inspired.

Only being pedantic by pointing out that there is a major difference between saying that the fictional Jesus of the Gospels is inspired by a real person(s), and saying that Gospel Jesus is a real person - a necessary distinction oft forgotten in discussions like these.

spin

This is irrelevant. (You're good at irrelevances.)

The analogy is difficult for you, apparently because the historical problems of each have not been considered by you at all. Reports of Robin Hood and linguistically related terms go back to the 1200s. There were no scribes with vested interests in Robin Hood, so texts won't have been manipulated as those for Jesus. (Every scholar and his dog accepts that at least part of the Testamentum Flavium has been touched up.)

I see no way historically for one to show either that there was or was not a Robin Hood. That's a situation where there are no beliefs to fall over. With Jesus however, with just as much historical evidence, ie none, people are so willing to commit either way. The analogy asks people to see reason and be consistent in historical method.

Doh! Yet another irrelevance.


spin

aa5874

And every mythical figure, we "know" today, has been warped with a little or lot of history.


So, it is acceptable to vote "yes" even if the entire story is fiction and you vaguely believe that its true?

You are promoting a "faith-based" Jesus.

ApostateAbe

That could be correct, but I don't understand what you mean.
Those who believe in a historical Jesus normally believe that some elements of the New Testament narrative are original to the words of Jesus. I put a lot of weight on Jesus' failed prediction of the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the world. It conflicts with the interests of the gospel writers, and it is therefore likely to have been original to Jesus. Therefore, the gospels are not entirely fiction. I don't advocate a faith-based approach. Faith is for believing things without sufficient reason.

schilling.klaus

there's no such thing as a failed prediction in the gospels

no, it doesn't conflict in any way

that's as absurd as it can get

ApostateAbe's approach is totally faith based.
It's based on the faith that the Roman Catholic church is not the kingdom of god on earth,
and on the faith in positivism.

Those faith assumptions prevent AA from seeing that that there's no such thing as a failed prediction in either the canonical or earlier the gnostic gospels.
The catholic gospels are prophecies after the fact, the gnostic gospels understand the enfd of the world and the coming kingdom metaphysically.

this includes the believings of AA and any other embarrassmentalist

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

I mean there appears to be no real major difference between Achilles and Jesus of Nazareth, both seem to be myths warped by "history".


And they hold these beliefs without evidence, the definition of "faith".

You use internal inconsistencies and contradictions to corroborate the history of Jesus of Nazareth, instead of external credible sources.
Your approach to the belief Jesus existed is completely flawed, you assumed that Jesus made a prediction before you showed that Jesus actually existed and then you use the failure of the assumed prediction as proof of the existence of Jesus. But, you had already assumed Jesus existed in order to claim he made the prediction.

Your approach is circular and erroneous.