(April 16, 2019 at 8:34 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The term historical jesus does not refer to a story about a god that appeared to people in human form. Marcion rejected the notion of a historical jesus in preference to a mythical christ.
Perhaps using someone elses mythology will help, since your own belief in mythology is clearly a barrier to understanding the difference in this christian context. There are also stories of pagan gods appearing in human form and "records" of conversations and events that transpired when they did. That people really believed their own mythology just as you believe in yours is not a certification or comment on a historical zues, or a historical odin, or a historical wakan tanka.
Most christians believe Jesus was God incarnate, god in human form, was resurrected. All of which are faith positions, not historical positions, because history like science isn't capable of confirming or denying any of this, since they're not historical questions. The same can be said of Marcion's belief that Jesus wasn't truly made of flesh.
The term historical Jesus, refers to a Jesus who lived in the first century, who went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and was eventually strung up and crucified by the roman, etc....All of which Marcion believed, duh.
If you want to keep sticking your fingers in your ear by all means go ahead, but at this point you're no longer providing any meaningful objections, and are just reverting to being a troll.
