Fine, let's iron out this point thoroughly before we start debate:
The bare minimum for the definition of "historical Jesus" I will agree to is that we can be comfortable putting the label "based on a true story" on all four Gospel accounts. While this does not mean that the Gospels must be 100% accurate. It doesn't even have to mean that all the miracles were later added to the story (although I would argue you don't have much left, that it's like arguing for a "historical Superman" but without all the super powers).
The successful ministry, attainable by a charismatic mortal, is a bare minimum to qualify as "based on a true story". (Spoiler alert for my debate points) Jesus, according to the Gospels, was a controversial superstar of his time. People from neighboring provinces flocked to see his miracles. Herod Antipas and other rich and powerful people were amazed by him (Antipas once asked if he was John the Baptist reincarnated). The priests were driven so frothing mad that they met on Passover Eve in a conspiracy to get rid of this guy.
I'll be generous and let you say the miracles were all made up. But if you try to argue that he was just an obscure rabbi known only to his small band of followers, you are effectively saying the Gospel accounts are all lies, both in their description of his ministry and his miracles.
Take away the miracles AND the ministry and you have nothing left except for a few pithy gems of wisdom, most of which is a re-hashing of Greek philosophy and some of the nicer OT values. And even these only come to us from the Gospel accounts, sources which must be dubious if we are to denounce their claims regarding his ministry and miracles as lies and exaggerations.
Just to be clear, I am *NOT* going to get suckered into trying to prove a negative. I'm already making generous concessions by using your holy scriptures as primary source material.
This means no Jesus-of-the-gaps. It's a favorite tactic among some apologists to argue for some guy named Yeshua who was one of countless doom criers and messiah wannabes in 1st century Judea who ended up one of many religious leaders crucified by Pilate and later some wild stories were told about him that might or might not have born any resemblance to the actual story and we can't expect that anyone would have noticed him at the time but ninja fact checking commandos would have cried "false" if anyone had ever lied...
I'm putting the kibosh on that right now. Successful ministry is a bare minimum.
The bare minimum for the definition of "historical Jesus" I will agree to is that we can be comfortable putting the label "based on a true story" on all four Gospel accounts. While this does not mean that the Gospels must be 100% accurate. It doesn't even have to mean that all the miracles were later added to the story (although I would argue you don't have much left, that it's like arguing for a "historical Superman" but without all the super powers).
The successful ministry, attainable by a charismatic mortal, is a bare minimum to qualify as "based on a true story". (Spoiler alert for my debate points) Jesus, according to the Gospels, was a controversial superstar of his time. People from neighboring provinces flocked to see his miracles. Herod Antipas and other rich and powerful people were amazed by him (Antipas once asked if he was John the Baptist reincarnated). The priests were driven so frothing mad that they met on Passover Eve in a conspiracy to get rid of this guy.
I'll be generous and let you say the miracles were all made up. But if you try to argue that he was just an obscure rabbi known only to his small band of followers, you are effectively saying the Gospel accounts are all lies, both in their description of his ministry and his miracles.
Take away the miracles AND the ministry and you have nothing left except for a few pithy gems of wisdom, most of which is a re-hashing of Greek philosophy and some of the nicer OT values. And even these only come to us from the Gospel accounts, sources which must be dubious if we are to denounce their claims regarding his ministry and miracles as lies and exaggerations.
Just to be clear, I am *NOT* going to get suckered into trying to prove a negative. I'm already making generous concessions by using your holy scriptures as primary source material.
This means no Jesus-of-the-gaps. It's a favorite tactic among some apologists to argue for some guy named Yeshua who was one of countless doom criers and messiah wannabes in 1st century Judea who ended up one of many religious leaders crucified by Pilate and later some wild stories were told about him that might or might not have born any resemblance to the actual story and we can't expect that anyone would have noticed him at the time but ninja fact checking commandos would have cried "false" if anyone had ever lied...
I'm putting the kibosh on that right now. Successful ministry is a bare minimum.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
