aa5874

Your questions are completely rhetorical.

Similar questions could be asked in support of MJ

If you are proposing that Jesus of the NT was a Man then you MUST also PRESENT the source for your claims. The Presumed Plausibility of your position is really of very little consequence since ALL parties, "for" or "against", must have at least believed that their position is credible.

1. It is PLAUSIBLE that Jesus was a mere man.

2. It is PLAUSIBLE that Jesus was a mere myth.

The NEXT stage is the PRESENTATION of evidence from antiquity.

Just SIMPLY state what you got for the MAN Jesus.

You GOT NOTHING BUT PLAUSIBILITIES but WE WANT EVIDENCE from antiquity.

TedM

aa, once again you completely missed the point of my post. It IS to talk about plausibilities and not evidence. Why? Because Earl voiced his opinion about what he finds plausible. What I think you are missing is the powerful influence our individual takes on possibilities and likelihoods has on how we view the evidence. His judgments affect his beliefs about the evidence. As do yours. As do mine.

I certainly DID intend to not discuss the EVIDENCE with Earl in my post. I want to know what is BEHIND his very different views of the evidence than mine.

If Earl, or you, or me or anyone else thinks that something is highly incredible and unlikely that in reality ISN'T, then we are likely to discount and 'explain away' items that should be given more weight than they are. I think Earl does this all the time and he would say the same of me. One way to understand these differences is to understand the differences in opinions about LIKELIHOODS.

IF this is something you are uncomfortable doing, please just go to another thread. IN any case, please respect the fact that I addressed my post to Earl, and not to you.

aa5874

Are you for real? This is an OPEN forum.

I AM ADDRESSING your post. I can ADDRESS any post.

I see massive FLAWS in your posts and can ADDRESS them.

Now, you did say that you were READY to DISCUSS the EVIDENCE.

Examine post # 53 on the 6th Feb. 2011.

I can't even trust you to say what you yourself really want to discuss.

TedM

aa, that was some time ago ago when the thread had gotton onto a lot of topics and Earl had yet to address Don's review chapters. It meant that I was ready to read discussions about the evidence.

This recent post from me was addressed to Earl and was pertaining to something other than the evidence. It was about his incredulous take on a couple of issues. I wanted to understand his VIEWPOINT. That's not evidence and that's OK aa. You see aa, when a person says they like something--say oranges, it doesn't mean that they don't like pears. Is that too difficult for you to wrap your obsessive brain around?

So yes I am 'for real' when I say I would like for you to respect the fact that I was addressing Earl in my post and asking him for HIS feedback, and was not inviting another poster to come in and whine about how I wasn't talking about Evidence. So, please give it a rest.

aa5874

Well, I like the MYTH Jesus theory and pears and oranges.

Again, I am ADDRESSING your post. So you can sit back and whine if you want.

Once you post on an OPEN forum anyone is INVITED to respond.

You seem to have some serious problem with the evidence from antiquity that show Jesus was NOT from the seed of Man.

aa5874

"Paul" said NO such thing.

We have Galatians 1.1.

Ga 1:1 - Why is it so difficult for you to even COPY a verse in the NT?

It is SO clear that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man according to "PAUL".

I can't even trust you to copy or repeat a verse from the Bible.

TedM

He sure as hell did aa. Maybe you need to study up on Paul a little. Here's a hint: check over all those references I gave you a week or so ago. I'm not going to do your work for you.

aa5874

Are you for real?

I just showed you Galatians 1.1 and you tell me about LAST week?

Did you have Galatians 1.1 in your Bible STUDY last week?

I told you already that the NT is a NON-HERETICAL compilation. The Church writers have Identified the teaching that Jesus was a Man with a human father as HERESY.

You won't find Heresies in the NT Canon.

Let US study Galatians together.

Now, look at Galatians 1. 10 The Pauline Jesus was NOT a Man.

You cannot STUDY the Pauline writings in a VACUUM.

In the NT Canon, Jesus was God Incarnate or was God who LATER became flesh.

TedM

aa your Galations 1:1 doesn't help your case. The fact that you use that verse and ignore the dozens that I gave you says all I need to know about your position. You are so far off I'd kindly ask you once again to not respond to my posts as they are a complete waste of my time. I again recommend that you actually read the stuff I sent you that clearly says Jesus was a man who died and was resurrected.

aa, Doherty doesn't pretend those verses don't exist like you appear to. He is well aware of them. There is no sign that you are. I have yet to see any acknowledgment that you can do anything other than repeat your mantra ad nauseum on these threads. The major diff between you and Doherty is that he actually engages in discussing the evidence that weakens his case and you don't.

aa5874

Are you for real?

Passages in Galatians, a NON-HERETICAL writing, that SHOW Jesus was NOT human does not help the MYTH case? This is MOST incredible.

But, passages that seem to say Jesus was human in a NON-HERETICAL compilation HELPS you?

Are you for real?

You DEFY ALL LOGICS.

You are EITHER NOT real or are NOT ready.

Your MANTRA that NT Jesus was human is without a SHRED of LOGICS nor can it be found in the NT CANON, a NON-HERETICAL compilation.

Galatians 1.1 is found in the NT Canon, a NON-HERETICAL writing, where in the NT CANON itself Jesus was found to be, AFTER an INVESTIGATION by the author of gLuke, the OFFSPRING of a GHOST and a woman.

You are not ready or not real.

You have NO idea what the NT CANON is about.

The NT CANON is about GOD who was made FLESH.

In the BEGINNING was the WORD, and the WORD was GOD and the WORD was made FLESH in the CANON.