PhilosopherJay

I'm having trouble inserting a picture.
You can just go http://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/...l-jesus-found/ if the picture isn't inserted.

This is my representation of the Temple of the Historical Jesus that scholars who believe in an Historical Jesus worship at.

Its four pillars are:

1. Galatians and few references to Jesus in Paul's Epistles.
2. A few sentences in Acts that seem to match Paul's Epistles.
3. A few paragraphs in Justin, Irenaeus, Papias and a few other Church Fathers.
4. the Testimonium Flavianum

If the scholars ever step outside of the temple they will see that 99% of the evidence is for a mythological Jesus and these columns are easily accounted for as the work of early Christians communities. There is no real evidence that somebody named Jesus built the temple. In the same way, there is no evidence that Zeus built the Great Altar at Pergamon, no matter how many people believe it or make money from it.

Toto

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thanks.

Toto

I don't get the reference to the few sentences in Acts that match the Pauline Epistles - who makes an argument based on that?

JonA

Has this thread been designed to have any discussion value whatsoever or is it meant to be humorous in the fact that it is a strawman misrepresentation of the historicist position and therefore oh so funny?

Toto

Please discuss why it is a misrepresentation.

JonA

Ahh... so I was wrong on both understandings: it was neither a joke nor meant to be of any value.

Good to know.

Jon

Toto

I'm still waiting to hear why is it a misrepresentation. Are you claiming that there is more to the historicist case? Would it be better to have Tacitus on one of the pillars?

andrewcriddle

It seems to assume that the Gospels are of no independent value as evidence for a Historical Jesus.

Many on this forum would agree, but it doesn't seem a position that can just be assumed.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

I was under the impression that historicists had virtually abandoned any real attempt to treat the gospels as evidence of Jesus. The best they can do is talk about "refracted memory." If Jesus existed, then the gospels might contain some evidence of how people remembered him, distorted and filtered through later experience. But the gospels can't stand alone as an independent source for showing that there is a historical core to the legendary figure in the gospel story. They are too late and based on theology, not history.