Tópico: Qual a natureza de Jesus Cristo?

[Criaturo]

A "média humana" apenas não quer carregar consigo a pecha de ladrão.
[/quote]

argumento haver a media de um consenso moral

[Criaturo]

a média humana concorda que não devemos roubar

Depende, se a amostragem for feita no Congresso Nacional...

vão negar até a morte, teoricamente para efeitos promocionais se apresentaram favoráveis a lei

[Criaturo]

aquilo que seus seguidores escreveram nos atos fazem parte de interpretações pessoais que não podem ser atribuídas a cristo.

Então como determinar exatamente o que foi dito por ele e o que foi  "escrito pelos outros"?

quanto mais o pensamento se aproxima da media humana menos divino ele é,

Segundo esta sua definição tanto o pensamento de gênios quanto o de loucos é divino, e quanto mais louco mais divino será, pois estará se afastando mais da média (e quanto mais genial também seria mais divino).

Neste caso você poderia citar alguns pensamentos de pessoas extremamente loucas e que você considera divinos, e não estou usando figura de linguagem estou me referindo a loucos de hospício os quais se afastam bastante da média, conforme a sua definição).

Sem falar na dificuldade de se determinar o que seria a "média humana de pensamentos".

a média humana concorda que não devemos roubar

A "média humana" apenas não quer carregar consigo a pecha de ladrão.

Concordo cada vez mais com este análise.

deveria analisar mais o fato de ninguem desejar ser roubado

[Buckaroo Banzai]

https://historyforatheists.com/about-the-author-and-a-faq/

[...] “When you talk about Jesus, do you mean the miraculous figure found in the gospels?”

No. When scholars talk about “the historical Jesus” they are referring to the Jewish man on whom the later figure of “Jesus Christ” was based. Of course, the scholars who are conservative Christians also believe that this “historical Jesus” and the Jesus of Christian faith are identical or at least very similar. But I (and many leading scholars) do not. I conclude that the later figure of “Jesus Christ” found in the gospels and worshipped as God by many today evolved out of memories of and beliefs about a Jewish preacher named Yeshua (“Jesus” is the English form) from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. I do not find the miracle stories about “Jesus Christ” any more convincing than any other miracles reported in ancient texts of the period – people then believed in such things but I do not. And I agree with those scholars who think the historical Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end times were coming very soon, as I detail here.

“Do you claim you can PROVE a historical Jesus existed?”

No, but only because historians do not deal in “proof”. History is a humanities discipline, not a hard science. So historians cannot “prove” things the way scientists often can – instead they use a structured process of critical analysis of relevant evidence to make an assessment of likelihood. So, like almost all of the scholars in any relevant field, I conclude that a historical Jesus most likely existed and that the alternative Mythicist theories are contrived, confused, often crackpot and totally unconvincing.

“Have the read the books of Richard Carrier/Robert Price/David Fitzgerald/Insert-latest-Mythicist-here.”

Yes. In most cases, several times. I agree with the overwhelming majority of qualified scholars who find those books totally unconvincing.

[...]

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/12/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet/

[...] The liberal Christians of the “Jesus Seminar” have attempted a large-scale assault on the idea of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, preferring to see him as a “aphoristic sage” preaching social and moral reform. Marcus Borg has been at the forefront of these arguments, attempting to argue that Jesus may have made eschatological statements about a future apocalypse, but it was not central to his message and he did not believe it to be coming in his lifetime or that of his listeners. The arguments of Borg and his followers are complex and they and the responsese to them can be found in Robert J. Miller (ed.) The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate (2001). A fundamental problem with Borg’s contention that the apocalyptic sayings about the imminence of the apocalypse are later ideas and not genuine indications of the historical Jesus’ preaching is they can be found in an “apocalyptic sandwich”. As noted by E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 1985, pp. 91-95) and many before him (e.g. Bart Ehrman, James D.G. Dunn and Klaus Koch), Jesus’ position between John the Baptist, for whom the imminent judgement was reportedly central, and the early church as reflected in Paul’s letters, who longed for the apocalyptic παρουσία in their lifetimes, means a Jesus who also expected the apocalypse soon makes most sense.

Of course, Borg has counter arguments to this and other reasons to think Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but none that can be said to carry the day (for a summary of his arguments and a rebuttal to each of them, see Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, 1998, pp. 102-113). Despite the rearguard actions of conservative and many progressive Christians, the conception of Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic peasant preacher is accepted in some form by many or even most non-Christian and even some progressive Christian scholars (e.g. Allison). Bart, Ehrman, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredricksen and many others fully accept this reconstruction of the historical Jesus and, despite a lot of media publicity for their “findings” against an apocalyptic Jesus, the Jesus Seminar scholars have failed to shift the balance toward their alternative.

Of course, one of the strengths of this view of the historical Jesus is that it avoids the problem that plagues so many conceptions of him. It is often noted that reconstructions of the historical Jesus tend to reflect the scholar doing the reconstructing. So Catholic scholars find a Jesus who establishes institutions, iniates sacraments and sets up an ongoing hierarchy of authority. Liberal Christian scholars find a Jesus who preaches social justice and personal improvement. And anti-theistic Jesus Mythicists find a Jesus who was never there at all.

But Jesus as an Jewish apocalyptic prophet does not represent any wish fullfilment by the scholars who hold this view or reflect anything about them or their view of the world. On the contrary, the Apocalypticist Jesus is in many ways quite alien, remote and strange to modern people. He is firmly and often uncomfortably a man of his time. Which is why he is most likely the man who existed.

[...]