Toto

From his bio:

Van Voorst

Steven Carr

Minimum standard?You mean an actual quote from a document? Before claiming to know what the document is about?

Voort claims 'a tradition about Jesus death is probably present'.

This make him a pseudo-historian peddling junk scholarship.

Steven Carr

Voorst complains about anti-Christian bias of mythicists.


I mean, some of them have not even been a pastor in ONE congregation, the minimum standard needed to be free from bias when assessing evidence about Jesus.

Steven Carr

Voorst has the historians habit of being able to see the word 'Jesus' when mere mortals cannot see that word.

Voorst claims Mara was talking about Jesus when he spoke about the wise king that the Jews had executed.

'Jesus is 'doubtless' the one meant by 'wise king', writes Voorst,knowing his junk scholarship will be snapped up by the public.

Is there no end to the rubbish Apostate Abe will praise?

aa5874

I find it totally mind-boggling that people who WORSHIP JESUS and claim to be scholars seem not to even comprehend the meaning of an "historical Jesus."

Once Voorst, a Jesus worshiper, is claiming that the NT Gospels are essentially true that Jesus was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost, walked on water, was transfigured, was resurrected and ascended then he is ACTUALLY SUPPORTING the very same arguments of a MYTHICIST.

Once Jesus worshipers BELIEVE the NT Gospels are true, then the Jesus of the NT was TRULY a MYTH.

Huon

1 - It seems that Jesus did not write anything (same thing for Socrates), so, I do not expect anything directly from Jesus, except perhaps, his direct appearance in my garden. When, this happens, I shall tell that here.

2 - As for aa5874, mountainman, Acharya S, I am not authorized to give an answer for them.

Edited to add : A serious historicist should not accept the religious dogmas (physically son of god, miracles, flying up and down in the space without a rocket, and so on).

aa5874

You mean that a "serious" historicist cannot accept the evidence provided by the authors of the NT and Church writers?

You can't be serious!

Serious PEOPLE accept the evidence provided by apologetics and it supports MYTHOLOGY.

ApostateAbe

OK, cool. Under such conditions, I don't think it is so useful to demand "only one irrefutable proof" of Jesus. If just a normal human Jesus (not a god-Jesus) existed, then your preferred proof is plainly impossible. We should be thinking about probabilities, not about irrefutable proofs.

aa5874

But, it has already been known based on the ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE that the HJ is the LEAST PROBABLE.

Once Jesus was just a man and lived in Galilee for about thirty years and once the Jews regarded Jesus as an actual blasphemer then the Pauline writings are a PACK OF LIES and/or MADNESS when he claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead, was the Creator of heaven and earth, who died for the sins of the Jews and that circumcision was to be abolished due to the resurrection of Jesus.

It is FAR MORE PROBABLE that the Jesus story was fabricated many decades after the reign of Tiberius, after the Fall of the TEMPLE, and well away from Judea by some UNKNOWN fabricator and that the story was BELIEVED to be true by the DUPED.

It makes absolutely no sense, ZERO SENSE, for Paul to have told Jews and ROMANS including the ROMAN EMPERORS that every person in the Roman Empire that Jesus, the crucified blasphemer, had a name ABOVE every other name in heaven and earth and that EVEN the ROMAN EMPERORS must BOW to JESUS, the crucified blasphemer, whose body rotted away.

Which Roman citizen would BOW to a CRUCIFIED Jewish blasphemer as to a God BEFORE the Fall of the Temple?

Which Jewish man would BOW to a CRUCIFIED blasphemer as to a God during the time of Philo and Josephus?

The Pauline writings, if considered early, are the product of LIES and MADNESS.

The Pauline writings are far more compatible with fiction than history.

Jesus was just a story fabricated after the Fall of the Temple and believed to be true by the DUPED.