What counts as a historical Jesus?

[pakeha]

Thanks for the source material, maximara.
Did Carrier ever write up a response to Glenn Miller's rebuttal of his essay?

 

[Aepervius]

Do you understand what it means that study of history is an academic discipline? Do you understand what it means to study history? Do you understand how a scholarly consensus is formed and changed? If you want to be able to make meaningful independent judgements, you should at the very least be well versed in the scientific literature on the subject. If you demand direct access to evidence, then you should be able to understand that evidence, first hand. You can change the scholarly consensus: it's easy, peer review and publication and the following debate and further publications. This thread is just about random lay people having their personal hobby horses and obsessions aired on an anonymous net forum.

So, first, go and read, and then if you want to change the consensus go and study and publish. That's all that can be meaningfully said from the point of view of the formal and academic and professional study of history. That is really all. That's it.

"scientific literature" there is no scientific litterature , as in history is a social "science"

"If you demand direct access to evidence, then you should be able to understand that evidence, first hand"

Again the same bovine excrement about you need to understand it before we can even begin to cite the "document" or the call to "publish". Or even as if we wanted to "change the consensus". And in the mean time , no cite (well except Jayson, maximira and a few others thanks for the work).

I note your unwillingness to understand the problem at hand.

Well if the debate come any closer you can PM me. So far as I can see, there is no reason to shy away from the 55% HJ, 45% non-HJ.

 

[Piggy]

Thanks for providing the thread with these insights into Paul's writings.
I'm most grateful for the time and energy you've put into this commentary.

Thanks. Now just 5 more letters and 4 gospels to go... then I'll see what else I want to throw in before a review.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, I'm reading Galatians and am struck by something in chapter 5



and then just a bit later, this


I find this confusing and oddly reminiscent of the contradictions I'm accustomed to finding when treating with scammers and their rantings.
Obviously I don't want to retro-fit my own angle on this document, so could you give your take on this?

Can you give me a little more, please.

What do you see as contradictory here?

Let me know and I'll do my best to answer, although I have to be in the city again tonight and won't be back til late, so you might not get a reply til Tuesday, unless it's something I can deal with very quickly.

 

[Piggy]

Btw, someone put forth a possible comparison with "cargo cults".

This is absurd on several grounds.

First, they only date back less than 2 centuries.

Second, the JXs clearly did not have a "belief that various ritualistic acts will lead to a bestowing of material wealth."

As we've seen in Paul's letters, there is NO emphasis on ritual to get right with God, but only to remind oneself of the death of Jesus, which should not inspire one to lust after wealth, because -- as we've seen in the Jewish scripture the JXs obsess over -- God is coming to destroy all the people who do that.

Let's take this synopsis from Wikipedia:

Cargo cults are marked by a number of common characteristics, including a 'myth-dream' that is a synthesis of indigenous and foreign elements; the expectation of help from the ancestors; charismatic leaders; and lastly, belief in the appearance of an abundance of goods.

Paul's vision of the risen Christ was purely Jewish, first off. Nobody expects help from the ancestors. And the abundance was only going to occur after God destroyed the current mortal world.

In other words, the comparisons are only partial, and even then they are laughably superficial (Paul and Jesus were charismatic leaders who had visions, and their followers thought there was a time of abundance in the future) and in context are features of Jewish end-time cults, not "cargo cults" that would not appear for 1800 years.

Like I said before, this is like noting similarities in the speeches of Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama and claiming that they therefore follow the same religion.

Simply noting some superficial similarities between these very different groups does NOT in any way constitute a coherent and complete no-Jesus scenario which FITS INTO 1st CENTURY JUDAIC CULTURE.

It's just another absurd gloss.

For the life of me, I can't understand how mythicists do not perceive the absurdity of what they're saying.

 

[eight bits]

Piggy

and it's perfectly fine to build castles in the air without a shred of evidence and based on the wildest speculation possible.

People who live in glass castles in the air shouldn't throw Stone.

max

Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed."

We should be clear that Islam does accept much of the physical and temporal New Testament story. Even on the crucifixion, while Muslims believe that it did not really occur, they also believe that it seemed to witnesses that it did occur.

So, hypothetically, if we did find some actual evidence of a crucified Jerusalem "prophetic figure" at about the right time, Muslims might well agree with Christians that this could be their guy.

and a purely personal note, davefoc

A third impression was that Mark was written by an extremely skilled individual with great insight into how to weave a story that was going to resonate with his audience. Perhaps an obvious notion but one that I hadn't thought much about before. If you transport this guy forward in time a couple of thousand years I suspect he'd still be a very successful author.

I've always enjoyed "Mark" and respectd him as a stroyteller. Apparently, he reads better in translation, because his Greek isn't as polished as the exquisite (I am told by connoisseurs) stylings of Luke or John,

Nevertheless, an extraordinary soryteller, IMO.

 

[Belz...]

Btw, someone put forth a possible comparison with "cargo cults".

This is absurd on several grounds.

I thought you were the one who asked to find another instance with feature A. Now you're complaining that feature B doesn't fit, but that wasn't the criterion you asked for.

 

[annnnoid]

BZZZ WRONG. Again the John Frum cargo cult is exhibit number 1.

What's with all this buzzing? [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

Considering that Anthropology of Consciousness is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Anthropology Association has an article that flat out states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" this argument is in the dumpster.

I don't suppose it might be asking to much to provide an actual cite for such a thing. I did a google search and turned up nothing. I searched the SAC site and turned up nothing. I searched the SAC reviews and turned up nothing. So far your credibility is really taking a beating.

Considering that as Bruce Trigger pointed out in both the 1986 and 2006 editions of his A History of Archaeological Thought Ancient Near Eastern studies is effectively in the Imperial synthesis period of Archaeological process that is not saying much. That methodology has long been discredited and in one of these many threads I even cited a modern peer reviewed paper that went on on just how bad things were (“the excavation methods employed leave much to be desired” says a 1999 work regarding Later Village Period excavations and more recent sites are little better)

So....ANE studies is in the Imperial Synthesis Period of Archaeological process (which means...what?). And that is somehow bad because....??????????? Ooops...sorry. I notice you mention that 'it' (whatever 'it' is referring to) has long been discredited. Where has it been established that the entire field of ANE studies is somehow buried beneath this slagheap of ignorance? ...and where has it been established that this paradigm (I'm just assuming that this is the 'it' that you're referring to) has been discredited?

Actually Blasphemy laws and the Red Scare (1917-1991) put a major damper on any serious look into how historical Jesus was in most Western countries.

Well...that's about as useless a generalization as we've come to expect from someone with as much credibility as you have so far achieved.

"In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus."

So...because the Greeks conflated a real and fictional Midas...we are to conclude that Jesus did not exist. “...and the judges say...”...”credibility approaching life threatening levels!!!!”

"You should point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar, or Queen Elizabeth, etc., is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed."

People accept that Queen Elizabeth exists. Presumably that would be because...she is the reigning queen of England and, as far as I'm aware, is not dead yet! Of course...you might be referring to QE1...as opposed to QE2 ...but, as with most things Maximara...details are in short supply.

Next...ummm....argument. You can (somehow) vaguely conclude that in the far east (population....couple of billion) Jesus is regarded as a mythical figure. Would this be true in academic circles as well (presumably universities exist in the far east...here and there)...or did you bother to differentiate your demographic...even a little????

Credibility meter so far...approaching absolute zero!

You are simply too much fun Maximara. Please continue to post.

 

[Craig B]

Maximara, you say

So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus."

But you can see that the fictional character of the mythical elements of the stories about Midas do not exclude the possibility - in this case proved real by the discovery of his physical tomb - of his historical existence. Thus one person can by mythical and real at the same time. So to state, rightly, that there is a mythical Jesus, does not make it impossible that there was also a real Jesus.

 

[llwyd]

"scientific literature" there is no scientific litterature , as in history is a social "science"

Actually, actually being essentially a materialist, I believe that even human sciences relate directly to material events in the real world. There should not be any theoretical distinction between natural and social science. History is just so much more difficult than relatively simply and straigthforward sciences like theoretical physics etc... We have only the physical remains of the past reality, but that doesn't make the study - in principle - any less objective.

The problem is just that methods are not yet very advanced and problems gigantically bigger than in the relatively simple studies related to various less complicated and much more easily reachable processes of the physical world. OT, of course, as regards this thread - history has made actually very impressive progress even in the absence of these more advanced methods yet to come, and such minor issues as HJ can be settled (if only as probabilities) even now.

 

[Piggy]

So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus."

But you can see that the fictional character of the mythical elements of the stories about Midas do not exclude the possibility - in this case proved real by the discovery of his physical tomb - of his historical existence. Thus one person can by mythical and real at the same time. So to state, rightly, that there is a mythical Jesus, does not make it impossible that there was also a real Jesus.

Maximara continues to believe, apparently, despite repeated correction, that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith.

He continues to attack the Jesus of faith AS IF it were HJ.

So here he gives an example, yet again, which actually comes down on the side of HJ.

Also, he continues to believe -- in typical crank fashion -- that ANY disputes about the details of a subject negate everything about the subject, just as creationists point to disputes over the details of evolutionary theory and say "See, it's a bunch of baloney!"

The fact that debate over the details of Jesus' life and mission is ongoing... this is actually a sign of robust scholarship.

Yet despite the cherry-picking, none of these folks actually engage with the clear statement of consensus we see, for example, in Levine's introduction or in the citations posted by annnnoid.

The baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are not doubted by any serious scholars central to the field, as far as I know, and these two data points are enough to establish that Jesus was a human, not a persona.

(I do wonder what the "Anthropology of Consciousness" has to do with ANE studies.)

Also, they're pitching around for parallels (that dreaded Campbellian term) everywhere EXCEPT where they should be looking.

Like the drunk who drops his keys in the gutter, then looks for them under the streetlamp because the light is better, they point to mystery cults over here, cargo cults over there, folks who believed Sherlock Holmes was real (a group which notably does NOT include Doyle or his friends and relatives), Daniel and Enoch (who were NOT said to be contemporary), imaginary religious or folk traditions which supposedly left no trace of themselves except among the Christians... anything to avoid seeing Jesus and his original followers in their own context -- 1st century Judaica.

To pass muster, to even begin to be considered, any no-Jesus theory must be securely established in what is KNOWN about Galilee and Judea in the 1st century, and in the strictly Jewish theology and prophetic tradition which the earliest customs and writings are steeped in.

(This is the large pool of evidence which they need to consider -- but they ignore it completely because it's not what they expect in their Matlock version of history... the big find, the Rosetta Stone of HJ research... the rest takes too long for them to read and comprehend, so it's obviously of no use.)

Even after giving an overview of the most recent archaeology in rural Galilee, which shows the area to be thoroughly Jewish, and even after tracing back the early Xian apocalyptic beliefs from Esdras and Enoch to Daniel, to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, and even after showing that Paul's theology was exclusively Jewish (Hellenistic Judaism, but purely Judaism nonetheless), and even after establishing that the beliefs of the JXs and the earliest gentile converts don't even make sense outside of Jewish beliefs and traditions, they STILL look for their "parallels" everywhere else.

They still engage in their "but what if..." moongazing, instead of asking what is most likely IN THAT CONTEXT.

Of course, scholars of the ANE don't play those games.

They understand that people and movements are products of their own times and places and circumstances, and that we must look there -- not go roving through time and space to find specious "parallels" -- if we're going to understand them.

One thing that's clear is that Jesus's earliest followers say that he was a Jewish prophet who preached the coming of the Kingdom in their lifetimes, was executed by Pilate just as his mentor John was executed by Antipas, and who was then resurrected as the "first fruits" of the harvest which was the arrival of the Day of the Lord and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth.

What's also clear, in context, is that there's nothing at all odd or strange about the first 2 claims, and even their beliefs about his resurrection make perfect sense for a 1st century messianic, apocalyptic group of Galilean Jews.

Given that, there's simply no need to go looking for "parallels" in 19th century cargo cults, or non-Jewish mystery cults, or anywhere else.

The origins of Xianity are fully explained and make perfect sense within their own time and place and culture.

Given that fact, posing exotic explanations on the basis of a few superficial similarities is almost certainly a waste of time.

And given the failure of these ideas to pass academic muster, well... it would seem that it has indeed been a waste of time so far.

 

[maximara]

Thanks for the source material, maximara.
Did Carrier ever write up a response to Glenn Miller's rebuttal of his essay?

A kind of rebuttal is actually in the online version of Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997):

"Glenn Miller has written a rebuttal to this essay ("Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?" 2002), in response to which I changed some of the language above so as not to give a mistaken impression of my meaning. Miller's title has little to do with my essay, since I am not arguing here (even if I do elsewhere) that anyone in particular "invented" the miracles of Jesus. Rather, I am merely presenting a survey of the social and intellectual context in which those miracles came to be believed.

As to the remainder of Miller's criticism of this essay specifically, I plan to respond in a future rebuttal (which will be announced here). But one simple point must be made even now: almost all of Miller's relevant evidence comes from the educated or even scholarly elite (like Lucian), and thus in no way represents the average man or woman in antiquity, who by their very circumstance wrote nothing for Miller to examine. I would guess that skilled skeptics and skeptical viewpoints like those Miller finds probably could not be found in much more than 10% of the population of the time, if even that--but whose existence I acknowledged even in the original draft of this essay."


While Carrier himself hasn't seem to have written the rebuttal (I can't find the thing if he has) over on theologyweb.com a guy named Stinky did put some of Miller's examples in social and temporal prospective.

"Despite the direct evidence we have to the contrary, such as the one Steven Carr provided, Miller seems unconvinced, and offers Epicurus, Lucretius, and Lucian as counterexamples. There are a few problems with this however. First, Epicurus lived in Greece around the third century B.C. His writing has nothing to do with Jerusalem, or Rome, or even Greece in the first century A.D. The second problem is that Epicurus was a member of a small minority even in his own time, superstition and gullibility were common then, as it always has been, and unfortunately, probably always will be.

Lucretius is somewhat nearer, writing in the First century B.C., still, not A.D. Of course his was also a small minority position.

It seems to me, the only one writing near the time in question, is Lucian, and he does not support Millers position."

A poster called Johnny Skeptic provides even more things that takes Miller's position and kicks it between the legs and then proceed to walk off with its lunch money.

I can read Binford (who at times needs reintroduction to the introductory paragraph) but Glenn Miller's rebuttal makes my head hurt. It comes as even more disorganized then Binford and that is not a good thing.

 

[tsig]

Maximara continues to believe, apparently, despite repeated correction, that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith.

He continues to attack the Jesus of faith AS IF it were HJ.

So here he gives an example, yet again, which actually comes down on the side of HJ.

Also, he continues to believe -- in typical crank fashion -- that ANY disputes about the details of a subject negate everything about the subject, just as creationists point to disputes over the details of evolutionary theory and say "See, it's a bunch of baloney!"

The fact that debate over the details of Jesus' life and mission is ongoing... this is actually a sign of robust scholarship.

Yet despite the cherry-picking, none of these folks actually engage with the clear statement of consensus we see, for example, in Levine's introduction or in the citations posted by annnnoid.

The baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are not doubted by any serious scholars central to the field, as far as I know, and these two data points are enough to establish that Jesus was a human, not a persona.

(I do wonder what the "Anthropology of Consciousness" has to do with ANE studies.)

Also, they're pitching around for parallels (that dreaded Campbellian term) everywhere EXCEPT where they should be looking.

Like the drunk who drops his keys in the gutter, then looks for them under the streetlamp because the light is better, they point to mystery cults over here, cargo cults over there, folks who believed Sherlock Holmes was real (a group which notably does NOT include Doyle or his friends and relatives), Daniel and Enoch (who were NOT said to be contemporary), imaginary religious or folk traditions which supposedly left no trace of themselves except among the Christians... anything to avoid seeing Jesus and his original followers in their own context -- 1st century Judaica.

To pass muster, to even begin to be considered, any no-Jesus theory must be securely established in what is KNOWN about Galilee and Judea in the 1st century, and in the strictly Jewish theology and prophetic tradition which the earliest customs and writings are steeped in.

(This is the large pool of evidence which they need to consider -- but they ignore it completely because it's not what they expect in their Matlock version of history... the big find, the Rosetta Stone of HJ research... the rest takes too long for them to read and comprehend, so it's obviously of no use.)

Even after giving an overview of the most recent archaeology in rural Galilee, which shows the area to be thoroughly Jewish, and even after tracing back the early Xian apocalyptic beliefs from Esdras and Enoch to Daniel, to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, and even after showing that Paul's theology was exclusively Jewish (Hellenistic Judaism, but purely Judaism nonetheless), and even after establishing that the beliefs of the JXs and the earliest gentile converts don't even make sense outside of Jewish beliefs and traditions, they STILL look for their "parallels" everywhere else.

They still engage in their "but what if..." moongazing, instead of asking what is most likely IN THAT CONTEXT.

Of course, scholars of the ANE don't play those games.

They understand that people and movements are products of their own times and places and circumstances, and that we must look there -- not go roving through time and space to find specious "parallels" -- if we're going to understand them.

One thing that's clear is that Jesus's earliest followers say that he was a Jewish prophet who preached the coming of the Kingdom in their lifetimes, was executed by Pilate just as his mentor John was executed by Antipas, and who was then resurrected as the "first fruits" of the harvest which was the arrival of the Day of the Lord and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth.

What's also clear, in context, is that there's nothing at all odd or strange about the first 2 claims, and even their beliefs about his resurrection make perfect sense for a 1st century messianic, apocalyptic group of Galilean Jews.

Given that, there's simply no need to go looking for "parallels" in 19th century cargo cults, or non-Jewish mystery cults, or anywhere else.

The origins of Xianity are fully explained and make perfect sense within their own time and place and culture.

Given that fact, posing exotic explanations on the basis of a few superficial similarities is almost certainly a waste of time.

And given the failure of these ideas to pass academic muster, well... it would seem that it has indeed been a waste of time so far.

First century Jews were exempt from common human failings?

 

[maximara]

Btw, someone put forth a possible comparison with "cargo cults".

This is absurd on several grounds.

First, they only date back less than 2 centuries.

Irrelevant. We are looking for parallels not exact correlations.

Second, the JXs clearly did not have a "belief that various ritualistic acts will lead to a bestowing of material wealth."

Again Irrelevant as we are looking for parallels not exact correlations.

Go read Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Masks of God followed by the chapter on System theory in either edition of Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought for the basic understanding of how this actually works.


"John Frum prophesied the occurrence of a cataclysm in which Tanna would become flat, the volcanic mountains would fall and fill the river-beds to form fertile plains, and Tanna would be joined to the neighbouring islands of Eromanga and Aneityum to form a new island. Then John Frum would reveal himself, bringing in a reign of bliss, the natives would get back their youth, and there would be no sickness; there would be no need to care for gardens, trees or pigs. The Whites would go; John Frum would set up schools to replace mission schools, and would pay chiefs and teachers." (Worsley Peter (1957), The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia)

An end time in which the old world order will be destroyed to be replaced by a utopian perfect world. Sounds like what Jesus was preaching to me.

"It is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles." (Campbell, Joseph (2003) The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology Vol. 3 ISBN 978-0-14-019441-8 pg 362)

 

[Belz...]

Maximara continues to believe, apparently, despite repeated correction, that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith.

Well that raises an interesting question, which I asked yesterday but which went unanswered: what counts as a historical Jesus ? I mean, if we throw out the impossible stuf, the improbable stuff, the miraculous stuff, and most of the contradictory stuff, we're left with uncorroborated stuff. Paul certainly doesn't give us much to go on, and Mark is unreliable at best, and we have no information on Jesus beyond his possible existence in any other works.

So even if we agree that there was probably a man (or more) who was the inspiration for the Jesus narrative (and I do agree with that), we still have a problem:if that man is nothing, and I mean nothing, like the one from the gospels, can we still call him the historical Jesus ?

 

[Belz...]

The baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are not doubted by any serious scholars central to the field, as far as I know, and these two data points are enough to establish that Jesus was a human, not a persona.

1) Why don't they doubt the crucifixion ? Some biblical stuff speaks of a tree, not a cross.

2) Why does it point away from him being a persona ?

 

[maximara]

Maximara continues to believe, apparently, despite repeated correction, that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith.

He continues to attack the Jesus of faith AS IF it were HJ.

Because that is the position Pro-HJ scholars like Van Voorst, Paul Rhodes Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd take.

They are not just arguing that there was a 1st century preacher named Jesus preaching some end of the world philosophy who got himself killed by the Romans but that the Gospels are effectively historical documents.

Thallus (Van Voorst spells it Thallos) is trotted out to show confirmation of "the Gospels' accounts of the unusual darkness that engulfed the land when Jesus was crucified" A darkness NO ONE ELSE RECORDS

If all you are trying to prove is there was a 1st century preacher named Jesus preaching some end of the world philosophy who got himself killed by the Romans then why (bad pun time) in God's name are you pulling out Thallus who is in reality a secondary source via Julious Africanus in the 3rd century and who requires fudging of the date his work covers to fit anyhow (unless you want to prove Jesus lived in c100 BC!).

The only logical reason is that the Jesus of faith IS the HJ. If ANY of your sources ANYWHERE use Thallus that is what they are arguing and that is what you are stuck with!

 

[maximara]

Well that raises an interesting question, which I asked yesterday but which went unanswered: what counts as a historical Jesus ? I mean, if we throw out the impossible stuf, the improbable stuff, the miraculous stuff, and most of the contradictory stuff, we're left with uncorroborated stuff. Paul certainly doesn't give us much to go on, and Mark is unreliable at best, and we have no information on Jesus beyond his possible existence in any other works.

And that in a nutshell is what Remsburg was arguing in 1909:

"History, for the most part, takes cognizance only of noted men and important events; and while this silence precludes the existence of the supernatural Christ of Christians, and even that of the human Jesus of Renan, it does not necessarily preclude the existence of an obscure religious teacher and an insignificant sect which subsequently, by a chain of fortuitous circumstances, became the mightiest among the religions of the world."

But that is NOT what the HJ people like Pro-HJ scholars like Van Voorst, Paul Rhodes Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd are arguing for. They are arguing for the package deal--most of Jesus of Faith must be true for there to be a HJ. And for that position they need to the Gospels to be historical records...even though the Jesus Seminar chucked over 80% sayings and deeds of Jesus in said Gospels into File 13.

 

[Craig B]

If ANY of your sources ANYWHERE use Thallus that is what they are arguing and that is what you are stuck with!

That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I don't need to accept just any argument, however wrong, as long as it supports a conclusion that I think correct.

 

[IanS]

Maximara continues to believe, apparently, despite repeated correction, that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith.

He continues to attack the Jesus of faith AS IF it were HJ.

.

It’s actually impossible to do otherwise. Unless you completely discard all the biblical writing, and all the non-biblical writing that was almost certainly hearsay repetition of the biblical writing.

There actually is no Jesus figure who can be separated from the miraculous accounts of the biblical writing.

The only reason that we, in the 21st century, now completely reject all the numerous 1st cent. AD miracle claims in the NT bible, is because, thanks to 400 years of increasing scientific progress, most educated people on Earth finally understand that such biblical claims are quite definitely untrue fiction.

But nevertheless, that fictional biblical account, is the figure described as Jesus.

As soon as you begin striping all that obvious fiction out, you are increasingly guilty of trying to invent a new and deliberately fictional Jesus figure who was never the figure of the ancient biblical descriptions in the first place.