aa5874

I cannot understand how a God can be part mythical and part historical. It is insanity to suggest that Jesus ascended into heaven but his mother's name was not Mary. Jesus is either sitting on the right-hand of God or was fabricated by a person's pen.

We already know that the miracles that Jesus is claimed to have done are false. Unclean spirits do not make persons blind, deaf or dumb. The person who wrote about those miracles believed in the witchcraft of the day.The written miracles of Jesus were thought to be possible and reasonable 2000 yrs ago. Nobody could have seen Jesus do what he didn't do.

The fabricator of Paul is the origin of Christianity. A God cannot be half-real.

No Robots

Can you understand how the story of a man can be part mythical and part historical?

aa5874

Easily. However this Jesus figure is total fiction, from prophesy to ascension.He is a paper figure created by the fabricator of Paul. Jesus' name has been propelled into history through fear and violence.

No Robots

At least you don't try to "prove" your assertions. How delightfully refreshing.

Chris Weimer

Prove it.

No Robots

I thought we were supposed to get a kinder, gentler Weimer.

Chris Weimer

Nah. I want to see hard evidence, something only very few Jesus mythicists have actually attempted to procure. Meanwhile, HJ evidence is shrugged off by mythicists without an explanation, except that for some reason it is not valid. You can't be kind to fools, as the old saying goes, and likewise, I cannot be kind to those here who make these bold assertions without the intent to back up their statements. It's defeating to scholarship, to skepticism, to rational inquiry.

aa5874

1.There is no prophesy whatsoever of Jesus in the OLD Testament. Hence no Jesus
2.The recorded genealogy of Jesus' father, Joseph, in the New Testament is clearly contradictory. The father of Jesus in the book of Matthew is different to the Joseph in Luke. Hence two totally different Jesus.
3. The account of Jesus birth is different in the book of Matthew to the account in Luke. Hence, two totally different Jesus
4. The book of Matthew's prophetic claims of the actions of Jesus are all taken out of context. All the so-called prophesies can be found to be fraudulent in the Old Testament. Hence, no Jesus.
5. The miracles of Jesus are of witchcraft origin.No eyewitness could have seen any miracles. No miracle has been known to occur anywhere in the world to this day. Hence, no Jesus.
6. In the New Testament, Jesus died, to be raised again. Jesus was never seen at the tomb alive. Hence, no Jesus.
7. Jesus is claimed to have ascended into heaven directly from earth, this dramatic phenomenon, the most spectacular feat ever carried out, has been recorded no where in history. No contemporary historian know about this gravity defying leap. Hence no Jesus .
8.The eyewitnesses of Jesus in Matthew saw totally different things to the eyewitnesses of Jesus in Luke. Hence, two Jesus.
9. Paul did not know Jesus.
10.Paul was not indoctrinated by Jesus.
11. The doctrine of Jesus is written by Paul.
12. Jesus is a fabrication, Jesus himself cannot prove me wrong, Paul is fabricated. No God exists carrying the name of Jesus, the Christ, Son of God, Immanuel or Messiah.

RUmike

You're points are either theological (and thus have no bearing on a historical discussion, e.g. #1 and #4), display pathetic logic (basically all of them), irrelevant (e.g. #9-11), or assume what you are trying to prove (#12). I doubt Chris Weimer would care to respond in any length, but each point can easily be rebutted.

The Bishop

One major point in favour of HJ proved, there. If he'd been called Emmanuel, now.....
The nativity accounts go to great lengths to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, the City of David, as a king of the line of David. But they do so in the teeth of the fact that he was a Galilean. One has Jos. & Mary starting in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem, and the other has them returning to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt. There are obviously important Messianic reasons for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem, which is why they tell stories that place his birth there. There isn't the remotest reason for Jesus to have been depicted as actually being a Northerner, yet that is the single point of contact between the two narratives. A fictional Jesus would simply have been born and grown up in Bethlehem and there's an end to it. The shoehorning of a Galilean into a small Judean town is an indication of a real Jesus.

Can't say I follow the logic there. Again, something from old writings that doesn't exactly fit the figure of the mythology seems to rather bolster his realism, otherwise you would simply change the mythology to match the prophecy so that you wouldn't have to take it out of context. This is what happened with the virgin birth story, but the fictional v.b. stories do not a mythological Jesus prove.

On the contrary, they are not witchcraft origin - they are illusionist origin. And if you truly believe that no miracles have been observed anywhere in the world - mistakenly undoubtedly, but observed and recorded all the same - then you are clearly blind to events that routinely take place on our TV sets up to this day. Think David Blaine..
Well..... duh! As with the virgin birth, I don't rely on obvious impossible fictions for reliability tests of a historical Jesus. The Jesus I think existed was tried in Jerusalem and nailed to a cross, or at least a tree of some sort. Possibly his body was nicked from the tomb he seems pretty reliably to have been put in. Superman powers need not apply.
Well, the relevance of a lot of that last stuff escaped me, but I wouldn't disagree with the last sentence.