outhouse

this isnt about me or who or what I read

the real question is can you refute it.



and from a myther position, most cannot.

aa5874

Again, Christians of antiquity did typically NOT argue that Jesus was human and had a human father. The very Jesus of the NT is considered Non-historical by those on a Quest for an historical Jesus.

The term Historical Jesus has been Manipulated by many to mean Jesus merely existed regardless of his nature.

For many Christians it does NOT MATTER if Jesus was God Incarnate or simply a man they Believe he existed.

The Belief that Jesus was God Incarnate or that Jesus was resurrected is NOT about an historical Jesus at all. It was Myth Jesus that was God Incarnate and was raised from the dead.

No Robots

Then why did you jump into the discussion?

Don't you think unfamiliarity with the Talmud is a rather telling lacuna for a commentator on the NT?

Someone else suggested that the application of the historical method, for which he supplied links, resolves the question of Christ's historicity. I asked him to demonstrate how this generalized method could be applied to Hillel.

We do know that you think that the historicity of Christ can be compared to other historical phenomena. For example, you have stated that alchemy is more plausible than Christ's historicity. Why do think that Christ is more akin to alchemy than to someone like Hillel, who lived in the same cultural milieu at almost the same time?

Vorkosigan

Because your position is fantastically ignorant.

Don't you think people who make stupid assumptions shouldn't be posting here?

NR, you're desperately reaching here. I merely asked why, if you believe if Jebus' miracles on the doubtful historical evidence, you deny that much better attested alchemical experiences occur.

Back to the issue at hand. Explain your demand for generalizability and define what you think that might mean. Otherwise you're merely engaging in an especially hypocritical form of special pleading, demanding of others what you cannot supply yourself. Quit wasting time; we could be having a really excellent discussion on methodology here.

Vorkosigan

Chaucer

Toto,

Your initial statement that historicists are always Christian seems implicitly aimed at those historicists right here in this thread/board who regularly maintain that there was an ordinary human Jesus who was a mundane part of real history. Was your initial remark along those lines in fact aimed at such historicists right here in this thread/board?

After all, the OP for this thread explicitly references the non-extraordinary details only on which the secular academic case for a human historical Jesus is based, explicitly putting all extraordinary claims firmly aside. Given the explicit OP, are you implicitly saying that all such historicists on this board, who see the plausibility of an ordinary human Jesus in history, are uniformly Christian? Was your characterization of all such historicists as uniformly Christian indeed aimed at the historicists here on this board/thread? If so, can you back up that assertion? If not, then isn't it a slur, on a board like this, to dismiss this board's historicists as uniformly Christian?

Chaucer

Toto

I did not say that all historicists are Christians. I said that the issue has been pursued on this forum mostly by Christians.

I know that there are non-Christians who think that there is a case to be made for a mundane historical Jesus. I haven't seen the case made very well, but I have to assume that they are sincere.

stephan huller

There are very few traditional Christians (forget the American heretics) who embrace a 'mundane historical Jesus.'

Chaucer

Are you suggesting that those on this forum who have urged the merely human historicist view are mostly Christians?

Can you back up that assertion, please?

Thank you,

Chaucer

Toto

I've been around here over a decade. The issue of mythicism first became an issue here because a group of Christian apologists (who no longer participate) kept hammering at it.

Christians don't adhere to a merely mundane Jesus, but they insist that there is enough evidence to assert the existence of a mundane Jesus. They privately (I assume) believe that there was more to the story than that, but if there was no human Jesus, their faith is threatened, and the Nicene Creed is at risk.

So there are Christian posters here who confine their posts to asserting the existence of a historical Jesus (because they don't talk about the entire basis for their beliefs).

There are also people who appear to be non-believers who are strong believers in a merely historical Jesus - primarily ApostateAbe and Chaucer and Justeve. I think that the degree of passion that these posters bring to the question is entirely out of proportion to the evidence.

I think most of non-believers have looked at the evidence and changed their minds at least once, if they care enough to settle on a conclusion.

Chaucer

Please name them, and please confine them to Christians posting on this board today. Does your previous word, "mostly", still apply today to the demographic of Christians on this board arguing for Historical Jesus versus non-believers on this board? Thank you.

And most fully educated non-believers whom I know see the notion of a non-historical human Jesus as absurd. But here you're expressing an opinion.

Back to facts: You've named three skeptics here today who credit the secular scholarly model of an entirely human historical Jesus. Can you name many more than just three among the Christians on this board today to justify your application of the word "mostly" to them?

Thank you,

Chaucer