spin

What sort of evidence are you referring to? I don't remember people talking about evidence earlier in the thread....

2-J

Although I don't agree with some of Diogenes' views, I like this suggestion:

I believe (without searching) I read ApostateAbe suggesting something similar. I think it does make sense, for example, to say that 'the historical Jesus was not crucified'. It even makes sense to say 'the historical Jesus' name wasn't really Jesus'. He just has to have played this vital role in starting / inspiring this new religion, in its earliest form.

One advantage this approach has it is does oppose, for example, Doherty's view. Doherty says, roughly, that what started the religion was reading into scripture, and visions, and perhaps an the idea of an archetype of a particular preaching movement.

outhouse

J-D covered this very well.


HJ= a man who lived as a preacher teacher in Galilee the myths grew from

sotto voce

Actually, they were those reputed as pillars. But if there really is a God, he had better be the Catholic version.

Bernard Muller

From my website http://historical-jesus.info/ :
"my definition for 'historical' in "historical Jesus" is 'having lived in the past', based on the Collins English Dictionary (Canadian Edition), "belonging to past", and with 'Jesus' being the name of the man credited to have started Christianity."
Then, for clarification:
"Who was the historical Jesus?
On one side, his earthly existence is denied by some. On the other is the incarnated "historic" Word of the ecclesiastic establishment. And then we have the scholarly renditions of the "historical Jesus": the charismatic founder of a movement or sect, as a sage, revolutionary, healer, magician, myth maker, prophet, one "in the Spirit", etc.
This website is not about anyone of these theories. Instead, its outlook is entirely different.

First, let's keep in mind the following:
By a simple act (remaining seated in a bus, then arrested), Rosa Parks (a humble seamstress then) provided the spark which gave birth to the momentous modern Civil Rights Movement, led by others from the start. Decades later, she was considered its "Mother" and revered as an icon, despite the fact she withdrew from it early on.

Then, considering the above, can we assurely answer "no" to this question:
Could Jesus have existed as just a lowly Jew, but through circumstances leading to (& about) his execution, triggered the later development, by others, of a (religious) movement and cultic beliefs?

But do we have evidence for this minimal Jesus and (despite his low status) about how he unwittingly initiated Christianity?"

For me, that Jesus had a critical but small role in starting (accidentally) Christianity, just as a link in a chain: Pontius Pilate => John the Baptist => Jesus => The group of Seven (proto-Christianity) => The church of Antioch (Jewish Christianity) => Paul (embryonic Gentile Christianity) => Apollos of Alexandria (full Gentile Christianity) => etc.

PS:
a) Jesus, as an uneducated lower class Jew, was not considered as a teacher, nor pretended to be a teacher.
b) Jesus' friends (or disciples or followers, any way you call them), some of them future "pillars" of the Church of Jerusalem, had no significant role in the propagation or development of Christianity. On the contrary. Also those, (with Jesus' brothers) never became Christians (believing in Jesus as Christ, Son of God or/and resurrected).

No Robots

Historical pertains to any phenomenon that has a measurable effect over time. For example, gunpowder is historical. Likewise, myths are historical. History is the examination of the origins and impact of historical phenomena. In the case of Christ, there is no dispute about the phenomenon’s effect over time, which is plain to all. The question then is one of the phenomenon’s origin: is it largely the result of a single man’s life, deeds, and doctrines; or is it essentially the result of a process of literary creativity and speculation? Now, some say that in history, as in physics, effects must be commensurable with their causes. Thus whatever caused the phenomenon of Christianity must be quite significant. This is the reason that Constantin Brunner ascribes the origin of Christianity to a genius. Now, some may say that the genius in question could be created purely through a literary process. However, in the absence of any other example in literature of a similar genius created through purely literary means, it is reasonable to conclude that we are dealing here with a real human being. Once we start to operate from this perspective, the cultural context of the literary artifacts solidifies the position.

Diogenes the Cynic

Only figuratively (that is, I was only using it as a stand-in word for any original group). That would not be an example of eisegesis anyway. That would be a plain reading. Eisegesis is reading things into a text that are not there.

spin

Shesh: I've slightly warmed to "actual historical" (given the usage I see of "the historical Jesus").


Diogenes the Cynic: now that you've withdrawn the eisegesis, can you stray onto the topic?


Bernard Muller: I presume from this that there is some necessary link to the past. It might be elementary, but I don't remember the notion having been said yet.


No Robots: You had me interested thus far. (Afterwards you went off onto a tangent, trying to validate an ontology through purely theoretical musing.)

How would you say your notion of "historical" helps us understand what is generally meant by the word in the context "historical Jesus"?

No Robots

Simply this: what can we know about the impact and origins of the figure of Christ? More specifically, how can the impact inform our understanding of the origin, and vice-versa?

Diogenes the Cynic

My answer was neither off topic nor eisegetical. You are using that term incorrectly. I made no comment on any text at all, much less an eisegetical one.