J-D

If your investigation consists only of the material you have presented to us on this thread, it is logically flawed and hence its conclusion is worthless.

J-D

If you say that you don't understand somebody, but you also say that what they are saying is false, then you are contradicting yourself.

J-D

I can't speak for spin, but suppose just for the sake of argument spin did say: 'My position is that I don't know whether Jesus existed or not.' There are people who say that, even if spin isn't one of them.

How do you respond to people who hold that position?

jgibson000

No. You misuse it. You rape it and misread it to suit your purposes and you draw absolutely invalid and logically fallacious conclusions from the evidence you appeal to to make your "case".

You conclusion is based on the premise that a report in an ancient document of a person' birth as being the result of a union of a woman with a divine figure decisively and automatically and indisputably renders any claim to the historicity of that person as false.

And yet when you are shown that this obviously is not the case, and that it was made of people who were indeed historical, and not thought by any ancient to have the effect you claim it has, you still insist that your logic and your claim is sound.

In other words, you do not recognize that your premise is faulty and you refuse to allow anything to actually or even potentially falsify your claims -- a sure sign that a claim is bogus. In fact, you have no idea of what would falsify your claims, let alone what sound logic is. In the light of all this, your claim that "evidence" not only supports, but inevitably leads to, your conclusion, is absolute horse hockey.

JG

jgibson000

Hmm. Judas after Theudas?

So much for Luke as an accurate historian.

Anyone want to bet that to maintain Luke's accuracy as an historian, Steve will say that Luke was simply accurately reporting the speech as Gamaliel gave it and that it was Gamaliel, not Luke, who was the one who was mixed up about the events Luke has Gamaliel mention, despite the facts that these events were separated by some 40 years, and that at the time at which Gamaliel is supposedly speaking (c. 33? CE), the Theudas incident (which occurred during Fadus' stint as governor of Judea -- i.e., 44-46 CE) had not yet happened?

JG

aa5874

.

Who are you raping and misreading?

jgibson000

Great riposte! Wat? Are you five years old.

But to answer your question, no one. To see this -- at least with respect to Matthew -- go here.

Now where is your evidence that Mark explicitly speaks, as you've claimed he does, of the conception of Jesus by a "ghost"? Put up or shut up.

JG

spin

Which is playing without a full deck. I don't care about belief positions such as yours. I care about what you can show and what you can't show. You ignore what you can't show and act as though what you can show nullifies what you admit not being able to show. The approach is like using the scientific law of uniformity without a statistically significant sample.

You functionally say, because you find certain facts in the Jesus tradition unacceptable, all facts in the tradition are unacceptable. That is not logical.

My belief system is not up for grabs here and neither should yours be.

I'm not interested in your decisions. I'm interested in the evidence you muster for what you want to say.

The only meaning I can extract from this is that you have been misrepresenting yourself repeatedly. This is what you have been saying: because you find certain facts in the Jesus tradition unacceptable, all facts in the tradition are unacceptable. Here is a typical example:

Typical reactions to your "investigation":

1. J-D - If your investigation consists only of the material you have presented to us on this thread, it is logically flawed and hence its conclusion is worthless.
2. Febble - You post a list of things you don't believe happened as written, and then conclude, on the basis of your own incredulity, that "Jesus never existed".

There are numerous other similar comments from various points of view in this thread. With one glaring exception, they all say very similar things: your conclusions don't follow from your premises. You continue to repeat them unanalysed and undaunted. The combination is also that of the most fundamentalist christian.

aa5874

This statement is full of errors and speculation Mark has never been identified, neither Matthew nor Luke, therefore it is pure speculation to say Mark does not know Matthew and Luke.

There are no passages in Mark that claim Jesus is the product of sexual union of Mary and Joseph. This is a false claim, unsubstantiated by the author of Mark.

Again, this blatantly false, see Matthew 1:18, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

I have not been able to find a passage in the Pauline Episles to confirm your statement, however I have found a passage, and there are more, that shows one of the Pauls being confused about Christ.
2 Corinthians 12:2, 'I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell; God knoweth) such an one caught up in the third heaven.

The NT claims that Jesus is the product of the Holy Ghost and Mary, any other claim is false and cannot be corroborated by any known credible source. The Jesus in the NT could not have been born, to claim he was the son of Joseph and Mary through sexual union is contradicted at least 2 times.
Joseph cannot be confirmed to be a real person. Mary cannot be confirmed to be a real person.

One fact remains true and cannot be contradicted and it is this; The Holy Ghost and a female cannot produce a child. Jesus is said to be the product of such a relationship, this cannot happen. Jesus never existed as described in the NT.

aa5874

Spin, there are billions of people who do not agree with my view, I aready know that.

Do you support the historicity of Jesus or not and why? That's the discussion.