Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Indeed.

nice, so is historical jesus fiction or non-fiction?

If you're only talking absolutes, you're not being serious.  That's not how the study of history works.  If this is just some kind of philosopher's "gotcha" game, I'm not interested.  Something that far back in time, you can only deal in likelihoods, some being more, well, likely than others.

you made up the story just a few minutes ago, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR STORY?
you should know, you made it up

[Grandizer]

so who is historical jesus if not biblical jesus?
some guy named sam? a collection of sams or maybe elmer?

According to some scholars like Bart Ehrman, he was an apocalypticist preacher who preached the imminent coming of a physical kingdom of God. The Jesus you read about in the Gospels is an embellishment of this figure according to the theologies and beliefs of their respective authors.

I read some of his writings, lame
what is the source of the story of historical Jesus??
I have read his shit, it's lacking in substance

Based on your strawman of his argument, I really doubt it. Bart Ehrman didn't make up anything, he studies the text to glean what truths can he made about the historical Jesus based on fairly reasonable criteria.

[jerry mcmasters]

nice, so is historical jesus fiction or non-fiction?

If you're only talking absolutes, you're not being serious.  That's not how the study of history works.  If this is just some kind of philosopher's "gotcha" game, I'm not interested.  Something that far back in time, you can only deal in likelihoods, some being more, well, likely than others.

you made up the story just a few minutes ago, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR STORY?
you should know, you made it up

Hmmm.  You'll have to remind me what my story was.  I remember saying biblical Jesus walks on water, etc., and that historical Jesus doesn't because history knows of no such thing...what did you need clarification with?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

According to some scholars like Bart Ehrman, he was an apocalypticist preacher who preached the imminent coming of a physical kingdom of God. The Jesus you read about in the Gospels is an embellishment of this figure according to the theologies and beliefs of their respective authors.

I read some of his writings, lame
what is the source of the story of historical Jesus??
I have read his shit, it's lacking in substance

Based on your strawman of his argument, I really doubt it. Bart Ehrman didn't make up anything, he studies the text to glean what truths can he made about the historical Jesus based on fairly reasonable criteria.

his judgment? is that what you respect?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

If you're only talking absolutes, you're not being serious.  That's not how the study of history works.  If this is just some kind of philosopher's "gotcha" game, I'm not interested.  Something that far back in time, you can only deal in likelihoods, some being more, well, likely than others.

you made up the story just a few minutes ago, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR STORY?
you should know, you made it up

Hmmm.  You'll have to remind me what my story was.  I remember saying biblical Jesus walks on water, etc., and that historical Jesus doesn't because history knows of no such thing...what did you need clarification with?

I asked you what the source of the character historical jesus is and you admitted it was your own reasoning that you are relying on to posit a historical jesus
that is your story

[jerry mcmasters]

you made up the story just a few minutes ago, WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR STORY?
you should know, you made it up

Hmmm.  You'll have to remind me what my story was.  I remember saying biblical Jesus walks on water, etc., and that historical Jesus doesn't because history knows of no such thing...what did you need clarification with?

I asked you what the source of the character historical jesus is and you admitted it was your own reasoning that you are relying on to posit a historical jesus
that is your story

Ah okay yes.  Yes I certainly could be wrong and it turns out there was no historical Jesus at all.  I find there are enough peculiarities to warrant a "historical" Jesus (first century hippy preacher-healer-apocalyptic asshole who thinks he's the Son of God, wanders around the communities of Galilee, tries to go Big Time, gets punked in Jerusalem) while obviously there wasn't a "biblical" Jesus who literally rose from the dead, was born from a virgin, gets pissed off at fig trees and burns them alive, etc.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Hmmm.  You'll have to remind me what my story was.  I remember saying biblical Jesus walks on water, etc., and that historical Jesus doesn't because history knows of no such thing...what did you need clarification with?

I asked you what the source of the character historical jesus is and you admitted it was your own reasoning that you are relying on to posit a historical jesus
that is your story

Ah okay yes.  Yes I certainly could be wrong and it turns out there was no historical Jesus at all.  I find there are enough peculiarities to warrant a "historical" Jesus (first century hippy preacher-healer-apocalyptic asshole who thinks he's the Son of God, wanders around the communities of Galilee, tries to go Big Time, gets punked in Jerusalem) while obviously there wasn't a "biblical" Jesus who literally rose from the dead, was born from a virgin, gets pissed off at fig trees and burns them alive, etc.

yes that is your understanding
why do you believe there was the hippy?

[EvieTheAvocado]

what is the source of this understanding? what is the evidence you are using to suggest this?

The best evidence against the supposed truth of the Bible is the Bible itself.

The best weapon against Christianity, though, is logic.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

what is the source of this understanding? what is the evidence you are using to suggest this?

The best evidence against the supposed truth of the Bible is the Bible itself.

The best weapon against Christianity, though, is logic.

so you believe there is a historical jesus because the bible

[jerry mcmasters]

Again I could be totally wrong. I don't think the entire NT is made up, but I think much of it is bullshit designed to correlate with OT stuff or bullshit designed to manipulate the current churches of late first century long after any "historical" Jesus was gone, but I think it more likely than not the stories of the wandering wonder-worker had a basis in someone who was (meaning he believed himself to be and others believed him to be) a wandering wonder worker. I find the alternative, that the NT is completely imaginative, less likely.

[EvieTheAvocado]

so you believe there is a historical jesus because the bible

What? That's not what I said at all. I never said that I believed in either Jesus.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

so you believe there is a historical jesus because the bible

What? That's not what I said at all. I never said that I believed in either Jesus.

IM NOT DEBATING EXISTENCE OF EITHER CHARACTER, IM SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME

[jerry mcmasters]

Careful Evie. Dude's going caps on us.

[EvieTheAvocado]

so you believe there is a historical jesus because the bible

What? That's not what I said at all. I never said that I believed in either Jesus.

IM NOT DEBATING EXISTENCE OF EITHER CHARACTER, IM SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME

You said "so you believe there is a historical jesus". But I didn't say I did.

I didn't say anything about belief in or existence of either Jesus either.

I explained how they can't possibly be the same because they have completely different definitions.

[jerry mcmasters]

S Outlaw, there's a pleasant I'M DRUNK thread you can shift over too if you need to chill a bit.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Again I could be totally wrong.  I don't think the entire NT is made up, but I think much of it is bullshit designed to correlate with OT stuff or bullshit designed to manipulate the current churches of late first century long after any "historical" Jesus was gone, but I think it more likely than not the stories of the wandering wonder-worker had a basis in someone who was (meaning he believed himself to be and others believed him to be) a wandering wonder worker.  I find the alternative, that the NT is completely imaginative, less likely.

WHAT HISTORICAL JESUS, THE ONE YOU MADE UP A FEW MINUTES AGO OR THE ONE YOU BELIEVED IN BEFORE I ASKED ABOUT IT?

[EvieTheAvocado]

S Outlaw, there's a pleasant I'M DRUNK thread you can shift over too if you need to chill a bit.

I would say that this guy is the smartest guy I've ever seen on AD yet ... but I'm against making statements that are the direct opposite of what I actually mean.

[jerry mcmasters]

Again I could be totally wrong.  I don't think the entire NT is made up, but I think much of it is bullshit designed to correlate with OT stuff or bullshit designed to manipulate the current churches of late first century long after any "historical" Jesus was gone, but I think it more likely than not the stories of the wandering wonder-worker had a basis in someone who was (meaning he believed himself to be and others believed him to be) a wandering wonder worker.  I find the alternative, that the NT is completely imaginative, less likely.

WHAT HISTORICAL JESUS, THE ONE YOU MADE UP A FEW MINUTES AGO OR THE ONE YOU BELIEVED IN BEFORE I ASKED ABOUT IT?

Goddammit I knew this was all just a philosopher's fucking "gotcha" game.  What exactly have I said so far that is not crystal clear?

[jerry mcmasters]

Jerry said: Again I could be totally wrong. I don't think the entire NT is made up, but I think much of it is bullshit designed to correlate with OT stuff or bullshit designed to manipulate the current churches of late first century long after any "historical" Jesus was gone, but I think it more likely than not the stories of the wandering wonder-worker had a basis in someone who was (meaning he believed himself to be and others believed him to be) a wandering wonder worker. I find the alternative, that the NT is completely imaginative, less likely

[EvieTheAvocado]

WHAT HISTORICAL JESUS, THE ONE YOU MADE UP A FEW MINUTES AGO OR THE ONE YOU BELIEVED IN BEFORE I ASKED ABOUT IT?

Newsflash: All definitions of anything are made up.

You don't seem to understand the basic essence vs existence distinction.

I didn't say I believed in either Jesus.

[jerry mcmasters]

LOUD NOISES!!!

[EvieTheAvocado]

Again I could be totally wrong.  I don't think the entire NT is made up, but I think much of it is bullshit designed to correlate with OT stuff or bullshit designed to manipulate the current churches of late first century long after any "historical" Jesus was gone, but I think it more likely than not the stories of the wandering wonder-worker had a basis in someone who was (meaning he believed himself to be and others believed him to be) a wandering wonder worker.  I find the alternative, that the NT is completely imaginative, less likely.

WHAT HISTORICAL JESUS, THE ONE YOU MADE UP A FEW MINUTES AGO OR THE ONE YOU BELIEVED IN BEFORE I ASKED ABOUT IT?

Goddammit I knew this was all just a philosopher's fucking "gotcha" game.  What exactly have I said so far that is not crystal clear?

This guy is a philosopher?! Color me insulted!

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

What? That's not what I said at all. I never said that I believed in either Jesus.

IM NOT DEBATING EXISTENCE OF EITHER CHARACTER, IM SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME

You said "so you believe there is a historical jesus". But I didn't say I did.

I didn't say anything about belief in or existence of either Jesus either.

I explained how they can't possibly be the same because they have completely different definitions.

define both then....

[EvieTheAvocado]

define both then....

I already did in my first post in your thread lol.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

and then you puss out be deriding defintions
intellecutally honest despite spelling fuck you`