Toto

Sure.

I would say that the historical Jesus theories are somewhat lacking in external support, but they do have some amount of internal coherence. But any flaws in Biblical History do not justify what we have here. aa5874's arguments make it too easy for newcomers to visit and decide that the discussion here is not really on point.

Not helpful to anyone that I can see. In particular, not helpful to maintaining a fruitful discussion.

aa5874

But, the activity on the thread itself proves you totally wrong. You yourself was part of the discussion.

Transponder made a reply to the thread on the 1st September, to which I responded and mountainman, Toto, bacht, 2-J were all involved in the discussion upto the 5th September.

The discussion was going exceedingly well, Transponder responded to my post, he tried to establish his position why he thought Jesus may have existed based on the "principle of embarrassment" and I tried to show him that the "principle of embarrassment" was bogus, it actually gave false results.

The discussion was going well, even you participated, until you made a very CONFUSING statement, which you still have not responded to.

Can you please SHOW me where I have used invalid reasonning to reach the right results, that the principle of embarrassment is bogus and gives false results.

I hope to have a FRUITFUL dicussion.

Doug Shaver

Here's another example. You have come to the conclusion that there was no historical Jesus. So have I. But I think you're totally confused on that subject, too.

Good reasoning is not about reaching correct conclusions. It is about using sound logic to reach those conclusions. Fallacious reasoning is not good reasoning, regardless of what conclusions it reaches.

aa5874

You are actually confirming your own CONFUSION and fallacious reasonning.

Please, do not try to derail my thread.

I have a lot more information to support my hypothesis that Jesus, the twelve and Paul are fiction.

A lot of people are anxiously waiting to hear it.

Amaleq13

An excellent way to continue making the same mistakes! :thumbs:

mountainman

Precisely the same may be said of Monty Python and most of the Mills and Boon genre. We have no evidence for the HJ before the 4th century. It is as simple as that.

And if it is not as simple as that kindly lay the early christian origins evidence (aside from that of Eusebius) upon the table for all to see.



Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

And further, Toto's statement is self-contradictory.

The NT and the Church writers presented a God/ man, Jesus, in effect, there is no known internal coherent information supporting an human only Jesus.

And, there is no known external information supporting a human only Jesus, as admitted.

Therefore, the human only Jesus has no support both internally or externally.

The plausibilty of a theory has no value as evidence.

And from what source did the human only Jesus crowd get its internal coherence?

I hope it is not from the same source that claimed there was an entity called Jesus who was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, witnessed by his mother Mary, resurrected and ascended through the clouds, witnessed by his disciples.

aa5874

It is my position that Jesus of the NT, his disciples and Paul are fictitious characters fabricated to distort history with the false claim that the son of a God actually lived on earth during the days of Tiberius.

Many scholars REJECT the Jesus of the NT.

However, what is extremely intriguing is that some scholars have claimed that the Jesus of the NT was some other character who lived during the reign of Tiberius. This other Jesus was not the son of the God of the Jews, he was not conceived by the Holy Ghost, transfigure, resurrect or ascend through the clouds as the authors of the NT wrote.

For these scholars, Jesus was just human.

But, in order for a person to locate a place, identify a real person, to find out if an event happened, or if a person lived at any time, there must be some information presented TO the investigator in order to carry out his investigation of the matter.

It is very important that I stress that information must be supplied TO the investigator, not the the investigator fabricate his own description or information and then try to find an entity that that fits his own description.

To investigate if Homer's Achilles existed, it is IMPERATIVE that the author's description of Achilles with respect to all events and places mentioned be properly analysed. For an investigator to reject the authors description, then his conclusion may be completely erroneous.

Achilles was described as the son of a sea goddess, this is a very critical characteristics of Achilles, if the investigator ignores this piece of information then he may conclude that Achilles was not a myth.

Mark Twain claimed "Tom Sawyer" is a character based on multiple real characters. Tom Sawyer is fictional. If an investigator ignores that is information, he may falsely believe Tom Sawyer actually lived.

Now, the authors of the NT and Church writers have presented information TO the scholars, (the investigators) this information is fundamentally fiction from the conception to ascension of Jesus. The scholars (investigators) have fundamentally reject this Jesus of the NT.

There is no need for scholars (the investigators) to fabricate their own Jesus and then claim they are looking for their own manufactured Jesus .

The investigation is over.

Scholars (the investigators) have rejected the Jesus of the NT, based on information supplied TO them.

It is therefore reasonable to claim that the Jesus of the NT did not exist until new credible information is supplied TO the scholars (the investigators).

aa5874

As I go through some of the posts on this thread, it has become clear that the historical Jesus, the human only Jesus, is IRRELEVANT.

The Jesus of the NT was a fictional character based on mis-interpreted prophecies, the assumed legendary characteristics of the God of the Jews, some fabled supernatural entity called the Holy Ghost and a human born without sexual contact by any man.

Now, since the authors of the Jesus stories, the Gospels, did not declare their intentions to the readers, that is these authors have not explained by preface or introduction how their fictional character Jesus was derived, the historical Jesus can NEVER be reconciled or discovered barring new information.

In a discussion with spamandham about Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, it finally dawned on me that even though Tom Sawyer is based on MULTIPLE REAL characters, and admitted by the author, Tom Sawyer can NEVER be regarded as historical.

All the events with respect to the MULTIPLE characters did occur, but no SINGLE person ever did those things. Tom Sawyer is that SINGLE character who the author used to have REAL mutiple characteristics.

Jesus is described in the Gospels, yet it is not known how many human characters were almagamated to create this fictitious character.

If we ignore for the time being the fictional spiritual and god-like characteristics, the fictitious human side of Jesus may have been a combination of A REAL magician, perhaps like Simon, perhaps a loner like Jesus the son of Ananus and maybe Judas the Galilean, as mentioned by Josephus.

The historical Jesus can NEVER be retrieved, the authors of the fictional Jesus did not alert the readers of the derivation of the character, only that it can be deduced that the character is based on the supernatural and human characteristics of which there may be a MILLION variations.

The historical Jesus is irrelevant, a confirmed case of futility.