Chaucer

To term the construct of the historicist JC as the "historical gospel JC idea" is a deeply offensive misrepresentation of the historicist's position, because it confounds the position of the historicist, who supports a non-supernatural historical JC as duly and consistently found in pagan sources like Tacitus and Josephus and Suetonius and Pliny, etc., with the position of the Christian, who supports the supernatural gospel JC as found in -- duh -- the gospels. There is either the "historical JC idea" or the "gospel JC idea". There is no "historical gospel JC idea" from any skeptic HJ-er on this board. That idea doesn't even make sense, since the gospel carries supernatural baggage and the pagan sources do not.

By combining "historical" and "gospel" the way you do here, you are confounding the historicist's position and the Christian's position as one and the same. They are not, and by choosing to confound them here, you are perpetrating an effective slur on every single skeptic on this board who happens to subscribe to the HJ position, and I'm calling you on that right now.

Chaucer

Toto

Chaucer - I think there are non believers who think that the gospels are a source for the historical Jesus. I think that most of the "historical Jesus" industry in academia try to mine the gospels for secular historical facts underlying the mythology. I think this is somewhat futile, but it's there.

maryhelena

You know what Chaucer/Stein - you can try 'calling (me) on that right now' - but I'm afraid that I'm not jumping when you call.....

I see that my post has been copied over on RS - as well as your reply - you know sometimes you do slip up with the Chaucer/Stein names....

Chaucer

If that's the attitude you take, then I am informing you ahead of time that, right after sending this posting, I intend to complain to the mods about your effective slur in your previous on all skeptics on this board who subscribe to the HJ position. I read what Toto wrote in, that the historicist position is still dependent on certain readings of the gospels. Let's see if any duly skeptic HJ-er here will back up such a claim. After sending my complaint to the mods, I will see if any skeptic HJ-er writes in so claiming that their position is dependent on a reading of the gospels. If any skeptic HJ-er here writes in to that effect, I will then withdraw my complaint. But until we hear from a skeptic HJ-er to that effect, I will pursue this complaint.

And by the way, since there's an easy way of searching the previous postings of any member, I will not appreciate it if some wise guy writes in as a skeptic HJ-er who is plainly an MJ-er instead -- or, for that matter, plainly a believer pretending to be a skeptic. I pretty much know who the skeptic HJ-ers are on this board, and it's only a posting from one of them to such an effect that will make me withdraw this complaint.

Thank you,

Chaucer

aa5874

It was these kind of posts that helped me to REALIZE that the HJ argument was hopeless and made no real sense.

Instead of providing CREDIBLE historical sources from antiquity for HJ it was DRAWN to my attention that the HJ argument was just about refuting claims or complaining about what others write.

If HJERS want to be taken seriously they MUST provide some credible historical sources for HJ or they would be no different to ANCIENT CHRISTIANS who had NO proof for what they believe about Jesus.

Chaucer, if you are an HJER just get some CREDIBLE HISTORICAL SOURCES from antiquity for HJ and STOP complaining.

That is all. There could not be an easier task.

Toto

Apostate Abe is taking a break, but look at his case for a historical Jesus - it is based almost entirely on sifting through the gospels to find facts that pass some credibility test. This is what Ehrman does - read through the gospels and decide what Christians probably did not make up, based on the critieria of authenticity.

Without the gospels, there is not much that can be said about a historical Jesus.

maryhelena

There is no such entity as a JC free from the gospel storyline. However much one might try some sledge of hand operation by dropping 99% of his gospel baggage and imagine that the 1% is now free from contamination - that's desperation talking not logic.

JC is what the gospels say he is - a literary, symbolic or mythological figure. There is no JC outside of that gospel definition. There is no historical JC - there is only the gospel JC.

The historical JC assumption needs to be called out for what it is - a sledge of hand movement designed to undercut the gospel JC. A carpenter, from wherever, viewed as a historical figure, is a nobody figure, with a no relevance for either Jewish messianic ideas or for christian 'salvation' ideas. (ie impossible to prove such a figure existed historically.) Useless, utterly useless...But such a gospel JC storyline, viewed in a symbolic or mythological context, can be interpreted as to have some 'salvation' potential. Big difference - and a difference that does not stretch ones credibility to breaking-point....

spin

I have two smilies (which despite their tongue-in-cheek nature I'm not allowed to use under normal conditions):



Anyone adhering to either as vociferously as we often see here on this forum needs breathing lessons.

maryhelena

Spin, ever heard of manning the barricades - sometimes it needs to be done - sitting on the fence never did save the day....:realitycheck:

spin

Just take slow breaths there, maryhelena. When the antagonists are in "no person's land", it doesn't mean that one has to side with either. In-out. In-slowly-out-slowly. That's it. You can get the hang of it. The barricades here are those of reason. Now deep. Feel those lungs inflate. Steadily out. The fence is the right place to be. You can get it. There is no saving the day. No communicating with Chaucer. It's all about rhythm. It's like watching a ball cross from one side of the net to the other. You breathe in, you breathe out. You breathe in, you breathe out. Rhythm. It's really that simple.