Logical

Elsewhere, aa5874 wrote,

So all the sources that we have about Jesus are forged, altered, filled with myths and magic, falsely attributed to dead authors, conflicting, biased with a bunch of crazy theological agendas, and therefore should be considered completely unreliable and historically useless by any credible historian.

Why don't we abandon any hope of knowing anything about a possible historical Jesus, and just conclude that if he existed -- and we don't know that he did -- absolutely nothing can be known about him with any satisfactory amount of certainty, and therefore anyone who claims to know anything about Jesus, including that he did or did not exist, is just acting on pure faith like religious people do?

Surely serious, credible, historians have more serious credible material to work with to study knowable events and figures in history, with credible sources and contemporary evidence. Should we file all the possible explanations of Jesus (historical and mythical ones) under the category of unknowable, unprovable, but intriguing hypotheses, and move on?

aa5874

Don't you even realize that ALL the Gospels, Epistles, and Acts that are named are ALL FAKE authors.

The gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke ....................are ALL FAKE authors.

The epistles of Paul, Jude, Peter, John, Barnabas..................are ALL FAKE authors

The Acts of Peter, John, Andrew.....................are ALL FAKE authors.

outhouse

Use the ignore feature,its priceless and you wont have to chase imagination

ApostateAbe

Some active members of the debate have taken that position, namely Toto and spin, and Robert Price would be their standard bearer.

aa5874

You don't seem to be interested in history. You seem to be frustrated because no-one can find any credible sources of antiquity for an historical Jesus.

May I remind that authors of Fiction and Myth Fables do NOT, NOT, NOT require credibility or historical accuracy.

Stories are classified as Myth Fables PRECISELY because they are NOT credible or historically accurate.

The Existing NT and Codices support Myth Fables of a character called Jesus.

Let us do history and EXPOSE the fraud and forgeries.

Toto

Speak for yourself, Abe.

The gospels are not a credible source for the historical Jesus, but they are a historical source. Some theories about Christian origins or the existence of Jesus are more likely than others.

But moving on sounds better and better every day.

Kapyong

Wow.
A post without red font - did your red ink run dry ?

ApostateAbe

I think I know your position. Which would you say is a more useful source of knowledge for the historical Jesus: (1) the 2nd- and 3rd-century fragments of the gospel of Mark, or (2) the screenplay of the 1971 Broadway musical "Jesus Christ Superstar"?

Toto

You mean you think you can read my mind. You can't.

Two points:

Referring to a "useful source of knowledge for the historical Jesus" assumes that there was a historical Jesus.

Both of those sources are useful sources of information about Christian thinking at the time they were written.

aa5874

You seem to be completely naive. Historians have already stated that the Existing stories about Jesus are NOT credible.

The reconstruction of the past at any level, in or out a courtroom, REQUIRES
Credible sources.

In a court trial, the witnesses SWEAR to tell the truth and then they are Still GRILLED to determine their veracity during cross-examination.

Even, on the Local News, the reports about any PAST EVENT MUST be Credible.

It is absolutely inexcusable for HJers to ADMIT their "witnesses" are NOT reliable and have been manipulated and that they cannot establish when their sources were written.

The HJ argument appears to be by far the worse known to mankind. The HJ argument is based on FAKE authors, Fake time of authorship, Fake chronology, Fake authors of Apologetic sources, Fake Disciples, Fake Contemporaries, Fake letters to Churches, FICTION and Implausibilities.