Perhaps it is past time to properly define this discussion.
A reasonable discussion of the Historical Jesus phenomenon...one which is sure to piss off fundies beyond belief!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Just from the brief quotation it is quite simple to see the problem with HJ methodology.
Frankly,what these guys are insisting upon is not so different from the Mythical Jesus position, which I suspect is correct.
A reasonable discussion of the Historical Jesus phenomenon...one which is sure to piss off fundies beyond belief!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Quote:The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus. The biblical description of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Christ of Faith in this context. The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life such as in fragments of early Gospels, and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus[10] (see Josephus on Jesus and the Testimonium Flavianum) and various Roman documents, such as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by imperial biographer Suetonius, and the correspondence of Pliny to Emperor Trajan.[11]
The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus.[12][13] Use of the term the Historical Jesus implies that the figure thus reconstructed will differ from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ").[14]
Just from the brief quotation it is quite simple to see the problem with HJ methodology.
Frankly,what these guys are insisting upon is not so different from the Mythical Jesus position, which I suspect is correct.
