Can you make this more concrete?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:19 pm(This is not a dig at Paul, but merely using Paul's post to make a point about a common trope in the discussion of whether there was a historical Jesus and, if so, that he was different to the NT Jesus.)Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:56 am
From the author's website https://www.jesushoax.com/book
That's consistent with a "minimal" historical Jesus, a rejection of the historical accuracy of the Gospel Jesus and Jesus of Faith, while accepting the ontological existence of a real man who actually lived.Could it be that Jesus, the miracle-working Son of God, never existed? That he was merely a man, a social agitator, who managed to get crucified? Yes--or so argues Prof David Skrbina in this compelling and even shocking new book. The weight of evidence strongly suggests that the biblical Jesus never existed, and that what we read in the Bible is an elaborate scheme, a hoax, regarding a divine god-man who came to earth to save humanity.
The proposition that the NT or Gospel Jesus was vastly or even completely different to 'the historical Jesus' would leave 'the historical Jesus' without a shed of evidence. Nil. None. Nada. Zip.
It's a false dichotomy.
The term 'the historical Jesus', especially in that context, is a kind of reverse poisoning-the-well fallacy: say, a 'filling-the-well' fallacy.
For example, J. D. Crossan's vision of Jesus. Is it incompatible with there being a "shred of evidence"? Or does it imply "Nil. None. Nada. Zip."?
Why or why not?