Toto

Go read any of Abe's threads. You can see that he relies on an interpretation of the gospels.

Every other non-believing HJ'er that I have read relies on gospels, based on the assumption that the religious and supernatural aspects can be pared away, and the rest taken as evidence of a historial Jesus. Without the gospels, the only thing that can be said about a historical Jesus is that he was believed to exist and was believed to have been crucified. That's not enough to write a doctoral thesis on.

Chaucer

But it is plenty to base a likelihood of Jesus the preacher's strictly human historicity on, since that bare-bones construct is found -- consistently -- in a few pagan sources.

Chaucer

Toto

It's not "plenty." It's more like "minimal and possibly second hand or forged."

spin

Reading isn't one of your skills obviously. No comment was made about religious commitment to a religion. You're too busy misinterpreting whatever you put your eyes on to bother with what people actual say. So with all your greasy histrionics all you're doing is helping to convince people that you talk fluent rubbish.

You just refuse to try to understand the implications of cultural hegemony.

You constructed a phrase "skeptic HJ-er" which requires along with belief that there was a HJ the notion of skepticism. To believe in such a hegemonic notion as a HJ excludes skepticism, but it in no way excludes the possibility that a person who believes in the hegemonic notion of a HJ is not a religionist.

I cannot justify your abuse of English that leads you to state this.

Does that come with a petulant tongue poke as well?

Your later formulation "non-believer HJ-er" is more reflective of the reality you were trying to deal with.

Chaucer

Ah, "trying to deal with". Ending with a dangling participle, I perceive. Who's abusing English now?

Helpfully,

Chaucer

spin

To make up for total lack of content Chaucer can pretend to flex his pre-WWII English language skills while showing he's lacking in knowledge there too.

JoeWallack

JW:
That would be me. To use AA's words, I think HJ is the better explanation, but I do not think it's proven. I think the arguments for HJ are more over-developed than Donald Trump's hair and attitude. My tentative belief is based on Paul and "Mark" (Christian). The problem with using the non-Christians as evidence for HJ is that Josephus is obviously forged and the others lack scope and are later.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

maryhelena

Thanks Joseph - common sense - or rationality - or logic - saves the day for JC being a product of the gospel storyline. :thumbs:

Thinking that somehow or another the christian NT can be sidelined and one can establish a historical crucified carpenter JC from non-christian sources - is the most crazy idea I've come across in a very long time....

Chaucer

I have read your postings, and I've found some of them intriguing. Your notions that the author of Mark intended there to be two protagonists, Jesus and Peter, and that Peter is more the tragic hero in his "flaw" than Jesus, plus your wondering out loud over the extent to which Paul may have intended crucifixion to be understood figuratively rather than literally, all point to a mind that is continually fascinated by close study and the subtleties it may reaveal. I don't agree with many of your conclusions, but your postings do show a continual propensity to closely evaluate everything.

Candidly, though, in those same postings, I see the evidence of an agnostic on HJ/MJ, and not the type of non-believer HJ-er I was hoping to hear from. I appreciate that you may genuinely view yourself as more of an HJ-er than not, and I also appreciate your bothering to write in here. However, with respect, your many other postings here, thoughtful as they are, indicate you are not a part of the demographic that Toto was implicitly partly referencing in her post and that I was explicitly referencing in mine. Candidly, you do not strike me as that type of HJ-er.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Toto

Joe is not a TRUE Scotsman HJ'er, so he doesn't count. I've pointed out how Abe relies on the gospels. Tim O'Neil hasn's shown his face here in a while. I don't know who is left, or how long you can drag this on.