One question I always have in discussions like this is:
What do you mean by "historical Jesus" if you want to throw out all the miracles, divinity and other supernatural elements?
I recently had a debate on this topic in this forum. Are the Gospels "based on a true story"? This, to me, is the bare minimum for a real person to qualify as a "historical Jesus".
Is this what you mean, Confused Ape? Let's do a "Jefferson" and take out all the supernatural stuff from the Gospels and call it an approximation of what really happened?
You might like to take a look at the conclusion to the debate I had on whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story. Click Here.
What do you mean by "historical Jesus" if you want to throw out all the miracles, divinity and other supernatural elements?
I recently had a debate on this topic in this forum. Are the Gospels "based on a true story"? This, to me, is the bare minimum for a real person to qualify as a "historical Jesus".
Is this what you mean, Confused Ape? Let's do a "Jefferson" and take out all the supernatural stuff from the Gospels and call it an approximation of what really happened?
You might like to take a look at the conclusion to the debate I had on whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story. Click Here.
Quote:Put bluntly, I could not possibly care less if there was "some-guy-named-Yeshua-who-was-a-religious-teacher". Yeshua was a common name in that time and place and doom crier/messiah wannabe were common professions. If your definition of "The Historical Jesus" is this vague, you can likely find several in 1st century Judea that fit that description. This is why the oblique references in the Annals of Tacitus and the Jamesian Reference in Josephus, even if we can be so charitable as to overlook the problems with both, do not avail the apologist in this debate. There are insufficient details in both to assert that the Gospels are at least based on a true story. Now the Testimonium Flavianum, if it WERE authentic, WOULD be the kind of evidence the apologist would need. I've already reviewed why it is not.
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
