aa5874

One of the sad ironies of your statement is that HJers know that an historical Jesus discredits early Christians as Deceivers and still spread the propaganda that that MJers have an agenda.

The very premise of the HJ argument is that the Jesus of the NT is NOT what early Christian claimed he was.

HJers put forward the devastating notion that Jesus was NOT a Savior and that people were UTTERLY DECEIVED for over 1800 years.

John 14:6 NIVJohn 3:16 NIV The historical Jesus rips at the heart of Christianity.

tanya

Apparently, Doug and Diogenes and J-D have indigestion, and cannot respond to this question. Diogenes ignores the question. Doug awaits someone's confirmation that Hercules really lived, and J-D is ?

Here's someone to defend the historicity of Hercules, for Doug:

Philo Embassy to Gaius



What impresses me the most, about Doug's reply, is that he was willing to clarify his decision to select certain parameters attesting to the historicity of Jesus, but not Hercules, until the latter had become "proven", implying, at least to me, if not to anyone else, that Doug regards the historical existence of Jesus of Capernaum as "proven". If not, why explain one's choices on Diogenes' poll vis a vis Jesus, while refusing to comment on Hercules, until the latter's historical existence is confirmed. To me, the only logical explanation is that Doug could respond to Diogenes' poll about an historical Jesus, because Jesus was genuinely historical, but cannot respond to a similar question for Hercules, because Hercules' status is unconfirmed.

Since I have never studied logic at any university, perhaps my understanding of Doug's thinking is incorrect..... Maybe his explanation is perfectly logical to someone with greater depth to their analytic capability than my shallow measure. J-D's powerful insight comes to mind. To me, it makes no sense to attempt to answer such questions about mythical creatures, like Hercules and Jesus. I cannot even explain how we know that Philo considered Hercules a myth. I believe that he thought that way, but I am not sure how to "prove" that opinion. The only thing I am relatively sure of, is that Philo's extant works do not reference Jesus, and do describe Hercules.

J-D

If you had been paying attention to what I posted instead of indulging yourself in making up ridiculous metaphors for my condition, you would have seen that I was waiting for you to clarify just what the question was that you wanted an answer to.

You ask what I would need to see in order to say that Hercules was historical and not mythical. My answer is that it depends on what you mean by the term 'Hercules'. Without that clarification I don't know what your question is supposed to mean and so I can't answer it.

tanya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

maryhelena

But you have chosen to use that name in the title of your OP: "We need to define "Historical Jesus". If the name is meaningless for a historical search for the origins of early Christianity - then so too are all the criteria you have used in your poll...

J-D

If what you mean by 'Hercules' is the Wikipedia page you just linked to, then I would not describe that page either as historical or as mythical; I wouldn't regard either of those as an appropriate description for that page.

I suspect that you don't in fact intend to use the term 'Hercules' to mean a page on Wikipedia, though; I suspect you're pointing to the Wikipedia page to save yourself the trouble of clarifying your own thinking. If so, that's not my fault.

Diogenes the Cynic

It is conventional in scholarship to use even spurious names as a matter of basic convenience when talking about ancient sources. We still call the authors of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, for instance, even though we know those traditions are spurious. It simply makes it easier to talk about them to continue using those names. There was no Homer, either, but we still use the name.

MrMacSon

• information from more than one biblical source that provides reliable biography
• writings by him - actual or attested copes
• artifacts
• was a sage of some kind
• Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels
• Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple
• Had some disciples, not necessarily 12

Adam

Don't expect more from sotto voce, he seems to be an agent provocateur for some sort of ultra-Protestantism. It's like trying to get an answer from spin.

As contrasted to tanya, from whom you will get a reply to your question, even if she understands it no better than aa does. She may be yet another person here whose nit-picking attacks on one one should just ignore.

tanya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules
Your suspicions are well founded. I pointed to the Wikipedia page to avoid sharing further my thoughts on anything. I had pointed to Philo, who mentions Hercules, and I was surprised to then read that J-D required clarification about which person named Hercules, Philo had been describing. Conventionally, on this forum, a link to a topic is treated as the method of choice, to explain meaning, especially with writing as obscure, cryptic, and sophomoric, as tanya's, or as dreary, dusty, and desolate as Philo's.