About your position in this table

[davidbrainerd]

Where's the option for "There was a Historical Jesus who is identical with the Christ of Faith of one of the heretical sects"?

[Ben C. Smith]

What poll?

Poll, table, survey, questionnaire, what ever you want to call it.

Did those evangelists and/or Hollywood entertainers actually read the table and check the appropriate box and turn it in to the pollster or did someone else (Klaus Schilling) pigeon hole them (make it up) without their permission?

No, of course they did not take the poll, simply because there is no poll. Or survey. Or questionnaire.

Some of the figures have been dead for decades. Heck, Reimarus has been dead for over 200 years.

Somebody evidently assigned each figure a cell in the table based on their reading of that figure's work.

[rakovsky]

For the Top row about Paul, I go with either 1 or 2:

1. All Pauline epistles are from the Paul whose social and chronological framework is given by a literal or rational reading of the Apostolic Acts.

2. The Paul of the Acts is the solid base of the Paulina, but got expanded by patristic tradition.

[John T]

Somebody evidently assigned each figure a cell in the table based on their reading of that figure's work.

Of course there was no bias or hidden agenda in assigning those names to those tables.

The reason for selecting those names for the upper left corner while forgetting to add scholars like Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, or Dr. Hannibal Lecter to the bottom right corner is purely a simple oversight.

Do you understand what a push-poll is now?

[Ben C. Smith]

Do you understand what a push-poll is now?

I always did. It is just that there was no poll here, not even a push-poll. (Using leading questions and skewed samples in a poll is not the same as placing names, unpolled, in a table.)

[Ben C. Smith]

(Unless "push-poll" means something else for you than it does for me.)

[MrMacSon]

Where are you in the following table?

http://www.egodeath.com/ScholarViewsHis ... ulAuth.htm

I'm 3-5 or 4-5 (or 2-5, or 5-5). If there was an HJ, I think he was early 2nd century and re-written as being in the first (anchored to Pilate & Herod by later writers).

I have some sympathy for 2-3 if there was a 2nd century HJ. I also have some sympathy for 3-3 and 4-3 (and 5-3).

Paul of the Acts could also be 2nd century.

[Ulan]

What are the scholarly credentials of Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, or Acharya S. that allows them to be considered scholars in the poll?

This appears to be a push-poll (shaming) based on false premises by mysticists.

I am not sure what that second sentence means, but the table also inserts some even more questionable names into box 1-1. Mel Gibson? (Jerry) Falwell? Pat Robertson? (Jack?) van Impe? (Hank) Hanegraaf? Shmuel Boteach? (Aloisius) Ratzinger? An actor director, some televangelists, an apologist critical of the faith healing movement, a spiritual advisor to Michael Jackson, and a Pope....

I don't think scholarly credentials are necessary to form an opinion or, as in the case of everyone listed, bring these opinions to the attention of the general public. Everyone of these left at least some impression on the public discourse.

[John T]

What are the scholarly credentials of Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, or Acharya S. that allows them to be considered scholars in the poll?

This appears to be a push-poll (shaming) based on false premises by mysticists.

I am not sure what that second sentence means, but the table also inserts some even more questionable names into box 1-1. Mel Gibson? (Jerry) Falwell? Pat Robertson? (Jack?) van Impe? (Hank) Hanegraaf? Shmuel Boteach? (Aloisius) Ratzinger? An actor director, some televangelists, an apologist critical of the faith healing movement, a spiritual advisor to Michael Jackson, and a Pope....

I don't think scholarly credentials are necessary to form an opinion or, as in the case of everyone listed, bring these opinions to the attention of the general public. Everyone of these left at least some impression on the public discourse.

I will try one last time to expose what I consider the bias in the O.P. (push-poll) and then move on:

1. The O.P. was asking for people to place themselves on the grid,table, cell (whatever). That makes it a poll/survey.
2. The tables/cells provided several names to help you compare/contrast who agrees with you before you proclaim your position. That is a bias or push.
3. The top of the chart says it is based on scholars views. Which scholars? Mel Gibson is a Biblical scholar? Surely no one considers the likes of Freke and Gandy as scholars.
4. The person who made up the chart, is an avowed mysticist. If you go to the link for the Jesus Mysteries discussion group they flat out say no apologetics are allowed. Bias anyone?
5. Now think of your reaction if Mel Gibson put out a push-poll and asked: "Who do you agree with more, the Pope or Hitler?" Then he placed Hitler in the same table as mysticists. Would you consider that a legitimate, scholarly method or just ugly propaganda?

Klaus Schilling did not play fair with his tables, which suggests he had a motive for the format he used.

[Giuseppe]

"Who do you agree with more, the Pope or Hitler?" Then he placed Hitler in the same table as mysticists.

Frankly, I started the thread because I consider the classification made by the table about the different views on Paul and Jesus (and their possible various intersections) to be highly exhaustive (also and especially to explain the differences between the mythicists). Therefore, I would have started the thread even if there was the name of Hitler (!) among the mythicists (even if obviously, the ''historical Jesus'' is so USEFUL to make REAL propaganda that the nazi invented deliberately one: the ''Aryan historical Jesus'').