Celine

:notworthy:

aa5874

Isn't it suspicious and weird that Jesus scholars would all agree that Jesus, the son of the Ghost existed even though they do not agree on everything?

Some said he was all ghost, like Marcion, some said he was half-ghost and half man, like Eusebius, and others said he was a man with a ghost inside him,like Cerinthius, but they all agree he existed. Now this is highly suspicious and downright wierd to me.

Magdlyn

Um, a bit weird tho. I'd call it an unholy desire.

And it contrasts very strangely with your "all the best" tagline. :Cheeky:

Magdlyn

Hyam Maccoby, a Jewish scholar, seems to take as a given that Jesus, the man, existed.

aa5874

But according to the NT and the Church fathers, Jesus existed as the offspring of a Ghost, and if Jesus scholars disagree most vehemently with his coming into existence as recorded, it is most absurd to still claim he existed without any credible histoical evidence.

I know of no Jesus scholar who can contradict, with historical evidence, Matthew 1.18, "Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise: When as his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Where is the evidence, from Jesus scholars, that Jesus never existed as the offspring of a Ghost as recorded in the NT and proclaimed to be true by the Church fathers?

Antipope Innocent II

What a glorious non sequitur. How does the last part of that assertion follow from the first part? It is quite possible to claim he existed and to argue that the supernatural details of his birth etc are not historical.

What would this historical evidence look like, pray tell? A letter from a Roman soldier called Pantera saying how he got a Jewish girl up the duff and how she covered it up by saying it was a miraculous conception?

Plenty of scholars can, and do, reasonably argue that the supernatural details of his birth are not historical. Where are you getting this odd idea that historians have to accept the whole Jesus story or none of it at all?

Ray Moscow

Coming back to the OP and heading: the question is how many [presumably biblical] scholars "believe" in an historical Jesus.

As a nonspecialist, nonscholar who just reads some of the available literature, I would say that most biblical scholars think an HJ is likely, if that counts as "belief".

How many of these scholars have done a thorough job analysing all relevant data on HJ question is perhaps a completely different question. How thorough a job the MJ camp has done with the relevant data is a different question still.

Ray (with no scholarly credentials, who doubts the HJ and leans toward a MJ explanation)

aa5874

The description of Jesus, his characteristics, his birth, life, the miracles, his death, resurrection and ascension are all documented in the NT as a direct relation to his being the Son of a God and the offspring of a Holy Ghost.

Is it imperative that I establish that Jesus was regarded as a ghost-like supernatural creature while he was claimed to be on earth. The Jesus scholars have not used any historical facts to contradict the NT or Church fathers' proclamation.

I will continue to descibe Jesus exactly as he is portrayed in the NT, and he is characterised as an offspring of a Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35.

And as far as I know it was the early Church that established the nature of the Saviour and declared that indeed this Saviour was the son of the Holy Ghost and existed in this form entirely while on earth.

Magdlyn

Agreed. If Jesus was not a divine dying and rising soter figure, and just a common street corner preacher, the New Testament has no point. Scholars who take the view he was an ordinary human being and nothing else are negating the purpose of NT. If he was just a regular guy, why should anyone care or defend this position?

No Robots

Totally. And if Socrates was just a drunken pederast, why should anyone pay attention to him?