Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-30-2012, 09:33 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874. ____Redux
Quote:
I suggest that threads with identical theme and content ought to be merged. |
|
12-30-2012, 10:28 PM | #12 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
I wholly reject your suggestion. My thread is dealing SPECIFICALLY with the HJ argument--I will EXPOSE that the HJ of Nazareth argument is the weakest of weak arguments and that Bart Ehrman arguments in "Did Jesus Exist?" are horribly illogical and downright absurd. This thread is NOT directly related to my argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on recovered dated manuscripts. Now, in "Did Jesus Exist?", page 197 Bart Ehrman made a most illogical statement. He claimed that the historicity of Jesus of NAZARETH does NOT depend on the existence of NAZARETH. How downright absurd!!! Ehrman has failed in the very basics of logic--if there was No Nazareth then there was No Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman's absurd statements are all over "Did Jesus Exist?" Examine page 198-199 of "Did Jesus Exist?" Again, Ehrman claims that the "shape" of the Jesus story in gMatthew has NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not Jesus existed. How absolutely illogical!!! The stories of Jesus in the Canon MUST be directly relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus when we have NO artifacts, No archaeological findings, No dated manuscripts, and No eyewitnesses from the supposed time of Jesus, the Son of a Ghost. Virtually all Apologetic writers of the Nativity of Jesus argued for hundred of years that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin without a human father. |
||
12-30-2012, 10:48 PM | #13 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
I wasn't telling you. I was suggesting to the mods, in that the content of your posts and arguments in this thread appear near identical with what you have been preaching in your long running thread "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 " they ought to be merged.
Hopefully we will see you produce something more than your broken record replay of those same assertions you that have repeatedly made in your long running thread "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 " . |
12-30-2012, 10:55 PM | #14 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
This thread deals SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY with the HJ of Nazareth argument--the weakest of weak arguments. |
|
12-30-2012, 10:58 PM | #15 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
In "Did Jesus Exist?", page 197 Bart Ehrman made a most illogical statement. He claimed that the historicity of Jesus of NAZARETH does NOT depend on the existence of NAZARETH.
How downright absurd!!! Ehrman has failed in the very basics of logic--if there was No Nazareth then there was No Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman's absurd statements are all over "Did Jesus Exist?" Examine page 198-199 of "Did Jesus Exist?" Again, Ehrman claims that the "shape" of the Jesus story in gMatthew has NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not Jesus existed. How absolutely illogical!!! The stories of Jesus in the Canon MUST be directly relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus when we have NO artifacts, No archaeological findings, No dated manuscripts, and No eyewitnesses from the supposed time of Jesus, the Son of a Ghost. Virtually all Apologetic writers of the Nativity of Jesus argued for hundred of years that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin without a human father. Up to the mid 3rd century Origen corroborated gMatthew. The Preface to De Principiis Quote:
Quote:
gMatthew's Jesus was a Myth. |
||
12-30-2012, 11:03 PM | #16 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
I'll leave it to the mods whether they think you are presenting sufficiently new material or simply engaging in spamming us with a rehashed reposting of the same assertions appearing in thread "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 ". |
||
12-30-2012, 11:11 PM | #17 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
|
|||
12-30-2012, 11:20 PM | #18 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Afraid I am aa. And quite obviously have already done so.
Better get to working real hard on that Nazareth angle if you want this turkey to live. |
12-30-2012, 11:58 PM | #19 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
You deliberately posted in the wrong thread using the caption "The myth Jesus Theory of aa5874. I may have to report you to the mods. Why do you persist in your blatant attempt to derail my thread?? Why?? Why?? Now, in "Did Jesus Exist?" page 207, Ehrman repeats the same absurd and illogical claim. Ehrman admits that the Gospels do indeed contain non-historical materials many of which are based on tradition found in the Hebrew Bible but he again argues that the non-historical materials have little bearing on the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed. How does Ehrman know if Jesus existed or not if the very information about Jesus in the Canon of the very Church is NOT relevant to his existence?? It must, must, must matter how Jesus is described in the NT Canon since the Church claimed the Gospels are authentic and historically reliable. Eusebius' Church History 6.25.4-6 Quote:
|
||
12-31-2012, 12:37 AM | #20 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
If you think that this thread requires moderator attention, please use the report post button.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|