Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

just some random shit?
who is historical jesus?
what do you base that on?

Well by "historical Jesus" I assume you meant the non-supernatural Jesus.

And obviously, the supernatural and non-supernatural Jesus can't be the same thing.

ok I am starting to folow you here, but i gotta reply with something besides acolades if you understand

non supernatural jesus, who? why?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Schrodinger's Outlaw, all jokes aside it seems there is some larger point you are trying to make or lead us to.  What is it?  There may or may not have been something we can call a "historical" Jesus.  Wouldn't be impossible, wandering creepy I'm The Son Of God types are littered throughout history.  I could throw a rock from where I sit right now and hit a couple.  But no atheist or reasonable person thinks there was a Jesus as described in the bible.  What's so complicated about all this?

if it weren't for the bible there would be no discussion about a guy named mud, elmer or charlie being jesus.

True.  And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

what was the name and why?

[jerry mcmasters]

if it weren't for the bible there would be no discussion about a guy named mud, elmer or charlie being jesus.

True.  And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

what was the name and why?

It's late and I'm not going to do all the heavy lifting.  The name?  Jesus probably.  Maybe not but likely.  Why would a charismatic lunatic want to pass himself off as the Son of God?  Because he thinks he's the Son of God probably; the historical context seems to fit.  He disliked making an honest living and adapted to a lifestyle he enjoyed?  Probably.  Followers?  Check.  Adulation, adoration?  Check.  Pussy?  Probably.  Why are you baffled by this?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

True.  And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

what was the name and why?

It's late and I'm not going to do all the heavy lifting.  The name?  Jesus probably.  Maybe not but likely.  Why would a charismatic lunatic want to pass himself off as the Son of God?  Because he thinks he's the Son of God probably; the historical context seems to fit.  He disliked making an honest living and adapted to a lifestyle he enjoyed?  Probably.  Followers?  Check.  Adulation, adoration?  Check.  Pussy?  Probably.  Why are you baffled by this?

CHUCK HIS NAME WAS CHUCK AND NO RELATION TO BIBLE

[jerry mcmasters]

Drink plenty of water and take a couple aspirins before you hit the gutter tonight.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

ITS YOUR CHCUKL DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH HIM

[EvieTheAvocado]

is because i can only type 32 wpm[...]

Bloody hell I can type over triple that speed.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Schrodinger's Outlaw, all jokes aside it seems there is some larger point you are trying to make or lead us to.  What is it?  There may or may not have been something we can call a "historical" Jesus.  Wouldn't be impossible, wandering creepy I'm The Son Of God types are littered throughout history.  I could throw a rock from where I sit right now and hit a couple.  But no atheist or reasonable person thinks there was a Jesus as described in the bible.  What's so complicated about all this?

hmm... if I answer this out of order evie the avacado will object
if it weren't for the bible there would be no discussion about a guy named mud, elmer or charlie being jesus.

The Bible also has a talking snake.

Tell me, are you a Christian?

[EvieTheAvocado]

ok I am starting to folow you here, but i gotta reply with something besides acolades if you understand

I struggle to understand you because your English is very poor.

yeah it is because I gotta format and all that stuff but I don't like to

Just better spelling, punctuation and grammar would help.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Well by "historical Jesus" I assume you meant the non-supernatural Jesus.

And obviously, the supernatural and non-supernatural Jesus can't be the same thing.

ok I am starting to folow you here, but i gotta reply with something besides acolades if you understand

non supernatural jesus, who? why?

Well, Jesus was either supernatural or he wasn't, right? (if he existed)

[SYZ]

...And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

I think both Tacitus and Josephus mentioned "Jesus" in a historical sense?  But considering they weren't
even born when the putative Jesus was alive, they were thinking only of the biblical—mythical—Jesus whose
real existence amounted to nothing more than hearsay.

[jerry mcmasters]

...And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

I think both Tacitus and Josephus mentioned "Jesus" in a historical sense?  But considering they weren't
even born when the putative Jesus was alive, they were thinking only of the biblical—mythical—Jesus whose
real existence amounted to nothing more than hearsay.

Yeah I always forget the exact references but it's ones like that, very tenuous as far as linking to an actual person, more likely linking to the already established little cult's impression of something or someone that was "Jesus."  So I wouldn't be one of those people (Christians usually) who crow about "references" to Jesus in non-biblical sources as if they've got some kind of rock-solid proof of the historical Jesus.

[Silly Deity]

...And outside the bible there isn't even a peep about him, so I feel I could be totally wrong and the guy may not have existed at all.  But I feel stronger there's enough "behind the curtain" stuff that there was a Jesus behind it all.

I think both Tacitus and Josephus mentioned "Jesus" in a historical sense?  But considering they weren't
even born when the putative Jesus was alive, they were thinking only of the biblical—mythical—Jesus whose
real existence amounted to nothing more than hearsay.

Yeah I always forget the exact references but it's ones like that, very tenuous as far as linking to an actual person, more likely linking to the already established little cult's impression of something or someone that was "Jesus."  So I wouldn't be one of those people (Christians usually) who crow about "references" to Jesus in non-biblical sources as if they've got some kind of rock-solid proof of the historical Jesus.

GWG's Resource Thread deals very effectively with Josephus.

http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...1#pid24841

[unfogged]

[julep]

Are they one in the same, the same thing.
I believe they are the same thing.
any dissenters?
please explain

Biblical Jesus is Glyptapanteles; historical Jesus is caterpillar.  The wasp is definitely fictional, and the worm may be.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

SEEMS SEMANTIC

[julep]

WORDS WORDS WORDS, AMIRIGHT?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

YEAH
IS HISTORICAL JESUS JESUS CHRIST?
IS BIBLICAL JESUS JESUS CHRIST?
THE SAME?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

just imagine that I am yelling....
the history for both biblical jesus and historical jesus comes from the bible......dissent?

[julep]

Doesn’t matter. Only biblical counts.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

there are other narratives, I count that in both camps
both the historical jesus camp
and the biblical jesus camp
it is christ, they are trying to describe. yet the narrative that both share is the biblical narrative

[Grandizer]

Broadly speaking, there's Biblical Jesus, historical Jesus, and mythicist Jesus.

All three camps have varying versions within them, so that even Biblical Jesus is not a self-consistent figure at that level. For example, the Jesus of Matthew/Mark/Luke is wildly different from the Jesus of John and also different from the Pauline Jesus.

[julep]

The Bible is far from the only narrative about Jesus. Narratives about both/all Jesuses are constructed every day with hymns, sermons, tv shows, slices of toast, etc. Historical Jesus—as defined by various people—seems most often used as a tool to chastise other people who have “wrongheaded” ideas about biblical Jesus.

But Historical Jesus is ultimately unimportant, per se.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

I am stlll processing @Grandizer comment
I don't think that mythicists are generating a Christ separate from the biblical/historical Christ, merely saying that biblical/historical Christ is myth.
Using the bible as recorded history the narrative there was a distinction between historical or biblical isn't clearly defined for me.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

I am stlll processing @Grandizer comment
I don't think that mythicists are generating a Christ separate from the biblical/historical Christ, merely saying that biblical/historical Christ is myth.
Using the bible as recorded history the narrative there was a distinction between historical or biblical isn't clearly defined for me.

@EvieTheAvocado what say you about the bold^?