youngalexander

I have not voted cos as usual there ain't a category. Nor have I read any comment, nor the poll result.

Thus I profer my pure thort (my thorts are always pure)!

I dunno! Having considered the question of the HJ for some time I remain agnostic. Thus, what the Gospels may say on the matter (altho part of the evidence), remains unknown - at least to me.

Ktotwf

It frustrates me that we will never know for sure whether Jesus was historical or not. Both sides of the issue are so ideologically charged that it just disintregrates into polemic most of time, especially from the Christian side.

Even assuming HJ, I would still vote None or Very Little of the gospels are historical sayings of his. The literary aspect of the Gospels is too evident, and they are too obviously Midrashic for me to believe that they are historical documents.

At the end of the day, Christians have far more to lose in this argument though. It isn't enough that MAYBE Jesus was historical, it needs to be that he IS historical, and these are his exact words and teachings to have any meaning.

aa5874

There is really no need to frustrate yourself. There is only one Jesus to look for and that is the Jesus of the Gospels.

The Jesus of the Gospels is implausible. This Jesus as described could not have existed.

Please do not frustrate yourself by fabricating your own Jesus and then claim you will never know if your fabricated Jesus existed.

The authors of the Gospels, the NT and Church writings have already described Jesus, and we must use their description and they have claimed or implied that their descriptions are true.

If you were looking for someone who was missing you MUST use the description given, you have no obligation to make up your own description after you could not locate anyone who fits the original description.

Based on the NT and Church writers, Jesus was TRULY the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, the Creator of the Universe, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.[/b]

Surely, it can be deduced within reason that such an entity, as described, was fiction.

This is "On the Flesh of Jesus Christ"
Now, if Jesus was human then it would have been his divinity that would be in question.

It is therefore irrelevant whether Jesus had flesh once it was admitted that all were agreed that Jesus was of a spiritual nature.

Jesus as described was a MYTH. There was no history to Jesus, he was just a backdated story.

dog-on

This^^

J-D

No, it wasn't that opinion which I said was inaccurate.

Here is somebody who thinks that Mark (at least) was intended to be a fictional narrative.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=246520

I think he's wrong, but I can't see how to prove it. Unless you can prove he's wrong, the matter is subject to doubt, and that makes it inaccurate to say there is no doubt.I'm not trying to restrict or eliminate it, I'm trying to refute it.And I never said they did, so that's beside the point.Again, beside the point.And again.Look at the thread I linked to above.That is insufficient to prove that there is 'no doubt'.

J-D

He says he wrote the first history, but that doesn't make it true.Where does he say 'heart of hearts and intellect of intellects'?

J-D

Not necessarily. Eyewitness descriptions are often inaccurate.

aa5874

And how would you determine that the eyewitnesses were inaccurate when the person is missing?

It is most logical that one must use the description given by those who claim to know the missing person.

aa5874

There is no doubt that one must use and need sources of antiquity to support their opinion of the historicity of Jesus or the credibility of the Gospels

I have found sources of antiquity that lead me to the opinion that there is no doubt that Jesus was just a backdated story of a mythical entity conceived by the Holy Ghost of God, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds and intended to be believed as historical facts.

An assertion of doubt is not evidence of doubt.

People can claim they doubt the earth is fundamentally spherical and revolves around the Sun, or that Elvis Presley is dead.

You may have doubts. I do not.

J-D

In this instance we are not trying to find a missing person. Everybody who lived two thousand years ago is dead, so there's no point looking for them. What we are discussing here is the extent (total, partial, or none at all) of the accuracy of written accounts, and it is most illogical to assume that total accuracy and total inaccuracy are the only possibilities. That's why there are three options in the poll, not just two.