Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I've said this on this board before, but I think it bears repeating: in these discussions, I don't think enough attention is paid to distinguishing which historical Jesus are we talking about?

After all, the fully-fledged, miracle working, amazing, inspiring Jesus Christ of the Synoptics and the traditional churches, is himself a historical Jesus.

But surely even the apologists on this board would say there's nothing to prove this fully-fledged man-God ever existed? Who is left, amongst apologists, who will defend the fully-fledged Jesus Christ of the synoptics as a historical personage? I don't think there are many. To take the most obvious point, as many have pointed out, if that Jesus had lived, he would have made a much bigger splash in the outside world than he evidently did, or at least some external evidence of some of the more outstanding miracles attested in the Gospels would have been found.

So if we start to "whittle him down to size", we are left with a successsion of paler and fainter possible historical Jesuses, none of whom is sufficient to support the traditional Church image of our Lord and Saviour, come to earth to redeem our sins, etc., etc.

Which leaves me with the question: what are apologists defending when they defend a historical Jesus who is nothing but a pale shadow of the Real Thing?

Why do they fight this admirable rearguard action in the fields of minutiae against the slightest suggestion that there might not have been a historical Jesus, when the character whose genuine historicity they are defending can have been, at most, only some obscure preacher or revolutionary, who by some equally obscure process became deified?

Originally Posted by J-D

What do you mean by 'apologist'? You question why 'apologists' are behaving in a certain way, but it isn't possible to answer this question clearly until we are clear about who or what you mean when you use this description. I think it much more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus, but I would never describe myself as being an 'apologist' in any sense of that word I am familiar with.

Originally Posted by Alf

I think it is an example of the christian's notoric habit of wanting to have the cake and eat it as well.

You don't believe Jesus existed? Absolutely most historians AGREE that Jesus really did exist, are you going against the concensus???

Ok, so now you believe. Then surely you must accept that the gospels are for the most part true. Sure, there may be some appearant conflicts due to interpretations but put emphasis on "appearant". For the most part, they all agree on the story of a 100% human and 100% divine and 200% full of himself miracle worker who was born by a virgin, got crucified and rose on the third day to save all mankind from sin!

Err... you don't believe that? Why are you so selective? You agree that Jesus existed and yet the books that tell about his life are not accepted? What do you accept about Jesus then?

See how this logic goes? On one hand, if you say Jesus does not exist they align themselves with the historians who have a minimal Jesus figure who was a plain person who did some ethical teaching perhaps and got crucified and had the name Jesus and then the moment you accept that image they jump to the full fledged gospel Jesus who is miracle worker, virgin born and crucified and risen and fully divine and all full of it.

This is also why I don't really care much for historians when they are defending their "Jesus most likely existed" view. Yes, it might be true that some guy named Jesus really did exist but it is not that Jesus the christians are talking about. When they refer to Jesus they talk about their miracle worker etc etc and that Jesus has never existed - period. This is why I am an MJer and I think those historians are wrong who claim that Jesus most likely really did exist.

Alf

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Agreed, many here who support the HJ position are rationalists who simply find it plausible.

Well, of course, it's understandable how rationalists could support such a position - the idea that there was an obscure Jewish preacher/revolutionary at the root of the phenomenon of Christianity is after all a position that's not completely implausible!

Originally Posted by Toto

There are people who identify themselves as apologists. They are advocates for the Christian faith. Their purpose for being here is to witness to their faith and make converts. They are not to be confused with those who treat the question of Jesus' existence as a topic of open historical inquiry.

For example - Bede's website says that he is engaging in "reasonable apologetics." Other self identified apologists like Layman used to be heavy posters here, but are not as active now.

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, isn't it also a greater mistake to argue for the historicity of Jesus without presenting verified evidence of his historicity.

For example we already have a description of a creature called a 'mermaid which I regard as mythological. If someone claims that mermaids in fact exist or existed, that person should have some information to corrobarate that statement.

Now, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, I have noticed, time after time, that those who are of the HJ view do not present any corroboration whatsoever of their position but actually spend most of their time refuting the views of others.

I am actually waiting for an HJer to lay down a comprehensive detailed analysis of his position.

Originally Posted by J-D

I believe that Roland really existed, but that the stories about him are almost entirely fictitious. Does that make me a 'Roland historicist' or a 'Roland mythicist'? Are you a 'Roland historicist' or a 'Roland mythicist'?

Originally Posted by J-D

Christianity exists. Somebody must have started it.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Somebody started Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism and Catholicism and it wasn't Jesus Christ. Christianity is a belief system, anyone can start a religion if they believe their God is real, it doesn't have to be Jesus Christ.