spin

I'm sure you understand the notion of keeping things as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Toto

Historicist is a useful term.

The "historical Jesus" may be difficult to pin down, but a historicist is a person who insists that there was a real physical person who either inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity, and that mythicists are wrong when they claim that Christianity started with a spiritual Jesus.

If you have an agnostic position on this, you don't need to pick sides, but a number of people have staked out a position.

Toto

Possibly because they are exhausted by the previous discussions on this question. The historical Jesus has something to do with the origins of Christianity. That's about all that people agree on.

AdamWho

I am sorry but this response pretty much highlights why you will not be taken seriously here on any place that values facts, evidence and valid argumentation.

Maybe you would be happier where people didn't place these demands on you, some place where people don't require evidence for claims.

Adam

I'm still waiting for a substantive reply to any of my posts and threads. No one any longer even points to any refutation whether on FRDB or anywhere else. I'm vulnerable on lots of points, so why can't anyone? (E. G., Teeple's sources, my correlation of sources with direct eyewitnesses, the Gospel According to the Atheists.) I really expected a lot more from you people.

Toto

By substantive, I think you mean one that accepts your method.

I have said before that Gospel According to the Atheists is part of your misunderstanding of sources. As long as you continue to use that term, I don't see the point of any response.

Grog

Before I respond to this, I just want to recognize that I've read many Roger Pearse posts and, whether or not I agree, he certainly knows what he's talking about.

In this case against tanya, I have to disagree, but I actually need to set out that I disagree with both on the issue of "myth" and "legend."

First, tanya. While I often see this argument that there is a clear distinction between myth and legend, there is also considerable overlap. Consider the defintions (these are from merriam-webster):

Myth:

1. a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

2. a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

3. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

and

Legend:
"a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable "

We can see that the case under consideration, the body of literature regarding an ostensibly historical being, Jesus Christ, falls into both categories. Jesus stories can be considered both "a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around someone or something" and also "a story coming down from the past...popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable."

Thus, Jesus-beliefs are both "myth" and "legend."

That tanya wants to make this distinction though does not suggest that she is being dishonest. Use of the word "myth" can mean something that is "imaginary" but does not need to be.

The "HJ" falls under the category of myth: imaginary or unverifiable. The HJ is a theoretical construct, or really an undefined hypothesis, derived by applying disputable methodologies to literature that does not describe an historical person. This theoretical construct is thus far not verifiable. Nearly all modern Christians believe in a mythical Jesus, and nearly all scholars would agree with that. When scholars like Ehrman publish books that declare Jesus did exist, to the minds of 99% of the population, this declaration means that the mythical Gospel Jesus existed, even though Ehrman would agree that that Jesus is a myth.

Adam

I never really thought there would be no refutation of such radical theses as I have put forward, but I'm beginning to wonder whether there really is none. (Of course I thought the exact reverse about my Gospel According to the Atheists, that I have disproven such an obvious falsity as MJ that the MJ position would basically collapse here. I guess the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination if true after all.)

J-D

If 'historicist' means a person who insists that there was a real physical person who either inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity, then anybody who denies that 'historicist' position must deny that any real physical person inspired or provided any impetus for Christianity.

Is there anybody here who thinks that Christianity began without any inspiration or impetus from any real physical person? How else could it possibly have begun if not with real physical people? What's the alternative explanation?

J-D

I don't mind a little bit of sniping. What disappoints me is the not answering questions. I answer your questions; you don't answer mine. I consider that evidence bearing on the issue of methodological superiority/inferiority.