Goliath

Metacrock,

The fact that you've resorted to petty insults shows how desparately you're grasping at straws.

I, for one, don't believe that you're dense enough to not realize that because you claim that Jesus existed and because you believe him to be the son of a god, you then claim that the son of a god existed (which is, of course, a supernatural claim).

Well, you believe that Jesus was the son of a god, therefore the second claim is a supernatural claim.

On the other hand, since there is no apparent supernatural connection with the war, claiming that the war is wrong is not a supernatural claim.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie

The former deals with the existence of Jesus while the latter deals with a property of that person. The latter, of course, could not be argued on historical grounds.

Vinnie

Clutch

Come on, Vinnie. You disagree with Goliath, but you could hardly fail to see what he's arguing: that it's essential to the concept JESUS that its extension be supernatural.

One might lower the bar for a historical Jesus all the way down to some physical object or other; Jesus might have been a park bench. But surely arguing a historical Jesus entails that he/it was human! Ah, comes the reply, you have to distinguish the existence of the object from the question of its having certain properties -- like the property of being human.

The point is, saying there's a difference between objects and properties is like clearing your throat. Patently what's at issue is which properties are definitional of the notion of Jesus. The more minimal the answer, the greater the plausibility of historicism -- and, the less it means to hold the view.

Vinnie

Divinity or messianic status or Son of Godhood or whatever is being argued is not essential to the the historicity of Jesus any more than birth in Bethlehem is.

Vinnie

Clutch

Okay, there's a statement of your view. I think what was wanted was an argument for it.

Vinnie

An argument for what?

Vinnie

Clutch

Please let this be feigned obtuseness.

I'll answer this, but you are on your honour with me now.

An argument for your claim, which I quoted and then asked what your argument was for it. Let me quote it again. What is wanted is an argument for the following claim, made by you.

Vinnie

You want me to argue that the historicity of Jesus is not dependent upon his alleged divinity? Are you being serious?

Vinnie

Clutch

Vinnie,

Yes. If it's just so easy to defend your claim, do it. Your evasion and posturing is sending all the wrong signals.

The idea that divinity is essential to Jesus may be one you disagree with, but I submit that masses of Christians, if told that there was never a son of God on Earth, would take this as tantamount to denying that there had been a Jesus. Goliath seems to take this view too.

You say that someone born outside of Bethlehem could still have been Jesus. I agree. Now, could someone born in Mexico have been Jesus? Could Jesus have been a woman? A one-legged musician? A one-legged female musician from Mexico -- could that person still count as the Jesus depicted in the gospels?

Some properties, or aggregates of properties, could reasonably be thought singular or conjoint sine qua non properties. Goliath seems to think divinity is one such; and surely many Christians would agree. You clearly disagree; but you have failed to give any rational buoyancy to your disagreement so far.

Jayhawker Soule

I am far less agnostic when it comes to one-legged, Mexicana musicians founding a movement that eventually manifests itself as the Jerusalem church. But I see nothing that requires historicity to be linked to divinity. Appeals to "masses of Christians" and "many Christians" aside, I would think that a 'latter-day' teacher/prophet (as per Vermes) would suffice.