Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[fredd bear]

[The Grand Nudger]

[fredd bear]

[The Grand Nudger]

The prince phillip movement is like that.  There obviously is a prince phillip...but that's the end of anything about him being the basis of a pacific island cargo cult.  No one who told the stories knew anything about him at all. Not a requirement.

[popeyespappy]

Q, a historical source?  Q is a hypothetical document proposed 100 years ago but never found.  The only point to hypothesizing it's existence was to rehabilitate the gospels relative inclusions and omissions, to strip the narrative of the supernatural, and present a character closer to our modern liberal sensibilities. 

There is no q manuscript, there is no reference to a q manuscript in antiquity, and if there ever were a q manuscript it's more than a little bit perplexing that no one kept it, considering the giant mound of trash that was kept and endlessly recopied.  

Here's an interesting tidbit.  If there ever were a q, and if the hypothesis about the construction of the other gospels relied on it as envisioned, the authors of that document didn't view jesus as the messiah, they didn't think he had redeemed their sins, they didn't claim that he had risen from the dead.  More a raving wanderer in rags.  The teacher of righteousness, lol.  Even the crucifixion of Some Guy™ is thought to be independent of this hypothetical q.

Any "historical jesus" derived from the q hypothesis will have nothing whatsoever to do with the character of jesus or christ in the new testament.  Instead, it would stand as a rejection of either of those characters being historical in any way.  The nt jesus would not be derived from q, but wholly re-imagined and independently constructed - a few sayings lifted here and there, with the jesus of q having been forgotten in process.  Even the name being a part of that re-imagining.  On top of all of that, the character in q, whomever that was, and if there was a q, wouldn't be on solid ground as a historical figure either.

The Q source, if it existed, is thought to have been more of a collection of things Jesus said rather than another account of the story. If the 2 source hypothesis is true, Q would have been where the sayings were lifted from.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not just a list of things that jesus is thought to have said.  It's a list of things that a particular jesus is thought to have said.  Not a jewish or christian legend or myth. Not a jewish or christian jesus. Secular 19th century jesus, heavy emphasis on the tradition of classical antiquity. The cynic, the stoic, the travelling sage. Confucius, not christ.

[fredd bear]

Q, a historical source?  Q is a hypothetical document proposed 100 years ago but never found.  The only point to hypothesizing it's existence was to rehabilitate the gospels relative inclusions and omissions, to strip the narrative of the supernatural, and present a character closer to our modern liberal sensibilities. 

There is no q manuscript, there is no reference to a q manuscript in antiquity, and if there ever were a q manuscript it's more than a little bit perplexing that no one kept it, considering the giant mound of trash that was kept and endlessly recopied.  

Here's an interesting tidbit.  If there ever were a q, and if the hypothesis about the construction of the other gospels relied on it as envisioned, the authors of that document didn't view jesus as the messiah, they didn't think he had redeemed their sins, they didn't claim that he had risen from the dead.  More a raving wanderer in rags.  The teacher of righteousness, lol.  Even the crucifixion of Some Guy™ is thought to be independent of this hypothetical q.

Any "historical jesus" derived from the q hypothesis will have nothing whatsoever to do with the character of jesus or christ in the new testament.  Instead, it would stand as a rejection of either of those characters being historical in any way.  The nt jesus would not be derived from q, but wholly re-imagined and independently constructed - a few sayings lifted here and there, with the jesus of q having been forgotten in process.  Even the name being a part of that re-imagining.  On top of all of that, the character in q, whomever that was, and if there was a q, wouldn't be on solid ground as a historical figure either.

The Q source, if it existed, is thought to have been more of a collection of things Jesus said rather than another account of the story. If the 2 source hypothesis is true, Q would have been where the sayings were lifted from.

 
Do you mean like The Gospel Of Thomas? Naturally rejected by Christian churches as it contradicts the established Canon, which was conveniently decided with divine guidance.

[Succubus]

fredd bear

The historicity of Jesus is accepted by 'historians' generally, for the reasons I gave.  It is not under contention as far as I'm concerned. <snip>
Historians generally? But then from the Wiki link you post with monotonous regularity:

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament 'scholars' and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.

I don't know if the bait and switch was deliberate but that is what it was.
How many times does it have to pointed out that 'scholar' is not a protected term, any rundown shmuck with a two dollar prayerbook can call themselves a 'scholar' I'm well familiar with that Wiki page, I've covered this ground before.
  
Now here is your challenge, should you wish to undertake it; name one scholar linked to on that page who is not a theologian or a priest. You know, people whose very existence depend on the bible story.

I'll give you one, Bart Ehrman. And the rest?

[popeyespappy]

[Fake Messiah]

Plus, as I've already said, why should I accept what some guy on some internet forum says ?

As I explained you also don't accept what CNN's Reza Aslan is saying as well as myriads of other scholars meaning there is no single "Jesus of History." Albert Schweitzer, in his From Reimarus to Wrede: A History of Research on the Life of Jesus, was already discovering that every scholar claiming to have uncovered the 'real' Jesus seemed to have found a mirror instead. Investigators found Jesus to be a placeholder for whatever values they themselves held dear.

I mean even scholars are able to delude themselves. You should take a look a topic I opened some months ago in which a medieval historian claims how there was a real historical King Arthur but he wasn't called Arthur, he certainly wasn't a king, he didn't live in Camelot and Avalon around round table, he didn't have a shiny armor because he lived in earlier period, he didn't have twelve knights and Merlin (to which she says were all made up)... I mean what is the point of "historical" king Arthur if he didn't do any of those things? You can practically make any fictional character "real" if you go like that, I mean take He-Man: He-Man was based on Conan the Barbarian, who was based on Greek son of god Hercules and did Hercules really exist? Well, he did, but he wasn't called Hercules and he was not son of a god and he did not have superhuman strength and he did not meet Atlas and held heavens, he certainly did not kill Hydra, but rather there was some guy in ancient Greece who was very strong and brave. So some guy existed on which Hercules was based on and then Conan was based on Hercules and then He-Man was created on Conan so ditto He-Man existed.