maryhelena

There is no other Jesus that is relevant for Christians.

Behind the gospel JC myth is history - and that history indicates that the gospel figure of JC reflects not one but two historical figures. There is no equation - such and such a historical figure = the gospel JC. The gospel JC is a composite literary figure that reflects the history of two historical figures.

Have a look at the chart I posted in the thread linked below.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE

An argument based upon an interpretation of the gospel JC story - which is what Ehrman appears to be doing - is not the type of argument that will answer the question: Did Jesus Exist? A story, a narrative, cannot be used to establish the story's historicity. Historicity requires evidence, such as coins or artifacts. With such evidence a story, a historical narrative, can be developed. Minus the historical evidence, there is nothing upon which to build a historical narrative. The gospel JC story is a narrative without supporting historical evidence - hence that JC figure can be discarded as being historical.

Sure, if one wants to opt for a flesh and blood gospel JC (in whatever configuration suits ones taste) so be it. But don't lay claim to historicity for ones JC reconstruction. Actually, the term 'historical Jesus' is nothing more than the historicists trying to do one of those sleight of hand operations - bait and switch - and fait accompli - historical Jesus takes center stage - minus that so offending *assumption* charge.

Sheshbazzar

They aren't on your list, but here are a few from my working definition of the character.

1. The Abomination of Desolation that stands where it ought not.
2. The Snake-on-a-Stake that Nehushtan was the warning exemplar of.
3. The False Prophet.
4. The Anti-Messiah that deceives the whole world.
5. The Liar and the Father of all lies.
6. The King of Babylon the Great, consort of the Mother of Whores. (Churches)
7. The living dead poked-full-of-holes Zombie that still feasts upon the brains of stupid men.

JonA

I think your list leaves out some important criteria on the historical Jesus, such as the three listed by Abe (his name was something like 'yeshua', he lived around the beginning of the first century AD, he was the inspiration of the myths about him).

I don't agree with Abe that these are all we need. I checked on 'crucified', 'was believed to be the Messiah', and 'had some disciples, not necessarily twelve'.

I think that these six together are probably the most important for a bare-bones historical Jesus. And I would assume that most people would agree with these, even if they might want to add a few more here and there or take away one or two.

Jon

tanya

Thank you, again, for making the effort.

We all agree that you are to be congratulated for starting this thread.

If we disagree on specific points, well, is that not precisely the purpose of this forum????

How can we advance, change, improve, if not through dialogue. Were we all to agree, that would imply that there remained no unanswered questions.

Cheer up, Diogenes!!! You are on the right track.

I fundamentally disagree with spin, for example, about the proper definition of "myth". maryhelena and I have nearly come to blows over the proper understanding of myth....(haha)

BUT, though we may disagree on this or that modest point, I think the forum is pretty clearly of two distinct minds here, and you, Diogenes, are responsible for giving us this opportunity to explore further this dichotomy.

The group to which I belong, urges you to understand what is fundamentally wrong with your poll, as a vehicle for defining an historic Jesus.

For that group, of rather modest dimension, the key is to replace ONE WORD in your sentence, and then repeat the same question:

Diogenes: can you tell us what is wrong with your question rewritten with this single word change?

Here you make almost the identical query:
You seek hypothetical, here you are:

HYPOTHESIS: Neither Diogenes, nor anyone else, can identify which parameters would be useful in offering a "working definition" of an historical Hercules, because HERCULES IS A MYTH.

Please go back and re-read Catch-22, Diogenes. Laugh a little. Have some fun....If someone asks you, on return, which historical features, elaborated by the author, were critical to comprehend this work of fiction, what will you say? If someone asked me that question, I would tell them, that Catch-22 is not history, it is fiction. Maybe it has a bit of gloss, with some historical accuracy, there were, for example USA warplanes in Italy, in 1944, and yes, those planes consumed petroleum based fuel, but, that's about it.

So, yes, I acknowledge that there is a Lake Galilee. No, I don't admit that Jesus lived in Capernaum overlooking that lake. So far as I am aware, Jesus and Yossarian are both simply fictional characters in two novels.

Bernard Muller

I voted yes reluctantly for "some kind of attack on the temple" because the disturbances were less than that, and not systematic.
I voted NO about the disciples believing in some form of resurrection. I am convinced Jesus' Galilean disciples never believed in it, but some hellenized Jews did, and they are the ones who started Christianity.

sotto voce

They were not even disturbances, if disturbance is impropriety. The traders were the disturbance, and everyone knew that, else the Sanhedrin would have leaped at the chance to arrest Jesus. There is frequent attempt to assert that Jesus acted improperly in the Temple, but it's nonsensical. It's familiar but improper misrepresentation of the record, which is of protection of the Temple, and prophecy (as recorded) of protection— 'zeal for your house'— which makes it more blatant.

Overstatement is counter-productive.

Diogenes the Cynic

There are no historical claims made about Hercules, so that comparison is not applicable. More accurate analogies would be Robin Hood, King Arthur or even King David.

The Hercules question is a dodge. I don't fundamentally misunderstand anything, I'm trying to see if we can clarify a consensus on what we mean when we talk about a "Historical Jesus."

The reason I put the supernatural characteristics on the poll is because it seems to me that some mythers are saying that a historical figure has to be magic to qualify as Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Sot, the coin changers and traders were part of the System. Jesus as depicted in the gospels acted improperly and more importantly, impossibly. There was never any disturbance in the Temple.

spin

Every single male pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty was son of god. The criterion used is the same as the one you use: some text says so.

sotto voce

Where does this System figure in the divine plan?