Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[jimhabegger]

It's not really hatred as much as just joking around.

Okay. Thanks.

I have another question. I got the idea from some of your posts that you think your historical Jesus is better ground to stand on than a purely mythical Jesus, for discrediting the idea that there was a real person who said and did some things that Jesus says and does in the gospels. I don’t see how your historical Jesus can serve that purpose. Your historical Jesus might not have anything to do with the gospel Jesus at all. Maybe the authors of the gospels or their sources got the name, title, and brother’s name of their crucified Jesus from some other crucified Jesus with a brother named James, that some people thought was a promised king of Israel. Or maybe they just chose his name and his brother’s from names that were popular at the time.

I’ll put it a different way. Someone had the idea of making a dying and risen god story into a story about a real Jew who was a promised god-king of Israel, and was crucified and resurrected. They didn’t get his name and his brother’s name from your historical Jesus. They never even heard of your historical Jesus. They just took the name and the brother’s name of their crucified and resurrected god-king from names that were popular at the time, which just happened to be the same as the name and brother’s name of your historical Jesus.

(later) You seem to me to think you know some other things about your historical Jesus besides being called “anointed,” having a brother named “James,” and being crucified during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate; for example what kind of person he was. Where are you getting those ideas from, if not from the gospels? You say that Christianity has nothing to do with what a Jew like Jesus would have advocated. How do you know that he wasn’t the same kind of Jew as Paul?