Spenser

Its not the same, we are talking about a man who walked around and inspired just about every one who saw him, supposedly performed miracles, but wasn't worth the time of historians. Its suspicious because he was making history as he was alive not just becoming a part of it to be recognized later...

No Robots

Maybe you should start by reading the Gospels. Yes, he inspired people. But most of these were the lowest of the low. And even they turned away from him eventually, in spite of his wonders. To the extent that it noticed him, officialdom hated and feared him.

Spenser

Been there, done that, wasn't impressed. Like I said, a guy pulling off the kind of shit he supposedly did would hardly go unnoticed. Nice that you need to reduce him to a nobody in order to make it possible that he existed though...

No Robots

Of course, I was using the word "nobody" in a figurative sense. And there you have a clue as to how the howling mob with its rigid materialistic literalism has consistently and grossly misunderstood this man.

Spenser

No, I don't because even if he was a real man I still highly doubt most everything written of him. IOW man or not, he is still a myth...

No Robots

The man and the myth suit each other. There is no need to throw either one away.

GakuseiDon

Sure, and I have no problems with that. There is so little evidence for a HJ that asking whether there ever was one is a valid line of enquiry IMHO. And Vork and others are right to bring up questions of methodology in extracting data from the NT.

But often the working assumption seems to be that a case for an MJ -- usually (though not always) the Doherty version -- has been established. IMO most Doherty supporters don't really understand the implications of his thesis (I doubt that many can even give a coherent account of it in the first place, like CliveDurdle's "crucifixion in the 3rd heaven" comment), they just accept that there is evidence to support it. But the evidence isn't there (in fact, his ideas go against the evidence), and nearly every time the topic arises, it gets flipped straight back over to the HJ. It's so frustrating that I've promised myself a few times now to stay out of these debates.

Now, showing a particular version of the MJ has problems doesn't prove a HJ, and showing a particular version of a HJ has problems doesn't prove an MJ. I suppose it comes down to what itch you are trying to scratch -- proving one version, or disproving another. Though for many it seems to be "I don't care what the answer is, as long as it isn't the gospel Jesus", which is fair enough.

Clivedurdle

So should we agree that anyone proposing an HJ also defines which type?

My model MJ goes something like this.

Only begotten son of god, logos, saviour of the universe, renting veil of a heavenly temple, melchizadek, heavenly sacrifice - unclear where but what the heck - script faults are to be expected, alchemic transformation of bread into flesh etc, new heaven and earth, kingdom of god with us.

Superb story very well presented for example by Dali in St John of the Cross.

Superb psychology, hitting all the archetypes. Again, a group of people - probably highly educated, probably with a leader, came together to write a wonderful story.

Jesus invented as the main character.

Can we start asking who might have written such a story? Someone very senior in the Roman Imperial Courts makes sense....

GakuseiDon

Same as Christian model.
Same as Christian model.
Same as Christian model.
Not sure of this one.
You mean the guy that the Hebrews appear to think lived on earth?
Did Satan do the sacrificing, as per Doherty's view? Or do you disagree with him there?

No Robots

Isn't this begging the question? Aren't most people trying to determine who the gospel Jesus is?