aa5874

What falsehoods are you talking about??

Is it not actually stated in the NT that Jesus was born after his mother was With Child of a Holy Ghost??

It is right there in the Matthew 1.18.

It is actually stated in Luke 1.26-35 Precisely that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived by an Overshadowing Ghost--Put that on Wikipedia instead of the HJers falsehood that Jesus was a human being.

In gMark does it not state Jesus Walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected??? Put that on Wikipedia.

It is HJers who promote the false hood that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being with a human father.

Please, HJers have invented their own Jesus story from their own imagination,

Why don't you put the Gospel of Abe on Wikipedia instead of mis-representing the MJ position and the very NT.

No where in the NT any author actually claim they met and interacted with a human Jesus.

No author of the NT had any interest in a human Jesus.

Put this on Wikipedia instead of the HJers falsehood that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being.

A Supposed Contemporary of Jesus claimed he was NOT human, that he did resurrect and wrote NOTHING about his Miracles, teaching, parents, birth, date of death, burial--No biography--except he was God's own Son made of a woman who was raised from the dead.

No human being can resurrect--put that on Wikipedia.


Put the Gospel of Abe on Wikipedia so we can see if there are falsehoods.

Toto

This is a delusion. The creationist analogy is just an insulting taunt, meant to provoke an intemperate and emotional reaction. Look at how it has poisoned the Vridar-McGrath exchanges.

Personal insults are banned on this board because they just lead to unproductive and emotional exchanges of insults, and not to any real exchange of ideas or fruitful discussion.

Besides, I have already explained to you that historicism has much more in common with creationism than mythicism does. All creationists are historicists, but I can't think of any mythicist creationists.

aa5874

If "ALL creationists are historicists" then historicists Believe the Bible is a credible source.

Why don't they believe the Bible when it states Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost and a virgin??

ApostateAbe

OK, let's keep the topic of this thread on track and discuss the creationism matter in my new thread:

Creationism and mythicism

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps because they know that their favorite tale is nothing more than a lying crock.
So they try to turn it into something that doesn't stink quite as bad.
They can blow on it all they want, and pluck their choicest straw out of the stinking mess, but it will still be a crock full of sh*t.

ApostateAbe

Interesting. I think mythicists are inclined to maximize the falsehood of the Christian canon. You and aa5874 are perhaps the most extreme examples of that, but I think it is a perspective prevalent among mythicists to varying degrees. Most of them don't try to hide it, though they may not be conscious of how much they are putting their prejudices on display, because they take their prejudices to be reasonable thinking. To me, the Christian canon is just another set of ancient documents. Like all other ancient documents, it contains a mixture of truth and falsehood, and we sort out the truth from the falsehood by thinking critically--putting the documents in their historical contexts, examining the biases of the authors and the sources of the texts, and fitting the most expected and most plausible historical explanations to the texts. If that sounds reasonable, well, maybe it really is. It is not about trying to make the most of a crock full of shit, or I probably would not have concluded that Jesus was a doomsday cult leader.

Sheshbazzar

Kind of hard to 'maximise the falsehood', when it is presented in some form on damn near every page.

Ain't nothing you are going to present that will ever magically transform the horse-shit contained in these old religious propaganda documents into accounts of historical fact.

You can 'conclude' anything you want by sticking together the straw you pick out of the shit.
But to do so you will be using your imagination while rejecting the very testimony, content, and information that these texts provide.

Steven Carr

Already been done, mate.

We all know mythicist claims have been extensively documented and refuted by scholars already.

For example, Bart Ehrman literature-bombed mythicists with tons of documentation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

'With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. '

All you need to do is put those 'pretty astounding' numerous independent sources on your Wiki and your job is done.

aa5874

The HJ argument must show that the NT is a crock full of shit.

The NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and HJers say it is a crock full of shit--Jesus was really and actually a man and people of antiquity knew it and still believed their own crock full of shit story.

HJers want us believe that the people of the Roman Empire including the Jews and Paul knew that the Jesus story was really a crock full of shit yet Paul traveled "all over" the Roman Empire with his shitty story and documented his crock full of shit in Letters to Churches.

Please, the HJ argument is horribly worthless--effectively a Load of BS.

Who in the Roman Empire would worship an actual dead Jew as a God who did absolutely nothing to be deified and was actually crucified by the Romans???

It is far more reasonable that the Jesus story were Myth Fables of the 2nd century just like the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans that were believed to be true.

It cannot be denied that the Greeks and Romans worship Mythological figures as Gods and believed that they existed as figures of history.

People of antiquity Believed the Myth Fable of Marcion called the Phantom so it is no different that the very Greeks and Roman believed the Jesus story of the Son of a Ghost.

What is the actual difference between a Son of a Ghost and a Phantom?? ALL are Myths.

Dave31

ApostateAbe, if you actually do create a Wiki page I trust that you'll include Acharya's mythicist position articles and video:

The Mythicist Position

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position

The History of Mythicism