FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-30-2012, 09:33 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874. ____Redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is evident that the HJ argument is hopeless. No new evidence has surfaced to support HJ of Nazareth and Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" has been an utter failure both in "logic and facts".

The HJ argument has only confirmed that the NT and Apologetic sources are NOT credible and cannot be relied on as historical sources for HJ of Nazareth.

Ehrman has demonstrated that virtually every story about Jesus of Nazareth is either fictional, implausible or cannot be reconciled.

The HJ argument has FAILED every criteria.

1. HJers have FAILED to show that any author of the Canon SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

2. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

3. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW anyone directly associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

4. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Saul/Paul before c 68 CE.

5. HJers have FAILED to show that the NT Canon is Credible.

6. HJers have FAILED to show that Apologetics are historically reliable.

7. HJers have FAILED to show any corroboration for Pauline letters BEFORE c 68 CE.

8. HJers have FAILED to show that the Jesus stories are historical accounts from Conception to Ascension.


It is clear to me that HJers cannot ever overcome their FAILURES based on the Existing evidence.

Effectively, the HJ argument has come to a devastating end.
This appears to be nothing more than a replay of your long running thread "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 " .

I suggest that threads with identical theme and content ought to be merged.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:28 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is evident that the HJ argument is hopeless. No new evidence has surfaced to support HJ of Nazareth and Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" has been an utter failure both in "logic and facts".

The HJ argument has only confirmed that the NT and Apologetic sources are NOT credible and cannot be relied on as historical sources for HJ of Nazareth.

Ehrman has demonstrated that virtually every story about Jesus of Nazareth is either fictional, implausible or cannot be reconciled.

The HJ argument has FAILED every criteria.

1. HJers have FAILED to show that any author of the Canon SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

2. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Jesus of Nazareth.

3. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW anyone directly associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

4. HJers have FAILED to show that non-apologetics SAW Saul/Paul before c 68 CE.

5. HJers have FAILED to show that the NT Canon is Credible.

6. HJers have FAILED to show that Apologetics are historically reliable.

7. HJers have FAILED to show any corroboration for Pauline letters BEFORE c 68 CE.

8. HJers have FAILED to show that the Jesus stories are historical accounts from Conception to Ascension.


It is clear to me that HJers cannot ever overcome their FAILURES based on the Existing evidence.

Effectively, the HJ argument has come to a devastating end.
This appears to be nothing more than a replay of your long running thread "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 " .

I suggest that threads with identical theme and content ought to be merged.
No, No, NO!!! You are not allowed to tell me what I must post. Just go start your own thread.

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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:48 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

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 " .
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:55 PM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
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 whith 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 " .
Why are you attempting to derail my thread?? Your suggestion is REJECTED.

This thread deals SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY with the HJ of Nazareth argument--the weakest of weak arguments.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:58 PM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

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:
..... it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...
Matthew 1:18 CEB
Quote:
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother..... became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Contrary to Bart Ehrman, it is absolutely relevant what the author of gMatthew wrote about the Birth of Jesus.

gMatthew's Jesus was a Myth.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:03 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
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 whith 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 " .
Why are you attempting to derail my thread?? Your suggestion is REJECTED.

This thread deals SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY with the HJ of Nazareth argument--the weakest of weak arguments.
My suggestion wasn't being made to you.
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 ".
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:11 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
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 whith 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 " .
Why are you attempting to derail my thread?? Your suggestion is REJECTED.

This thread deals SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY with the HJ of Nazareth argument--the weakest of weak arguments.
My suggestion wasn't being made to you. I'll leave it to the mods whether they think you are presenting sufficient new material or simply engaging in a rehash reposting of the same assertions.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SUCH A THING.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:20 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:58 PM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
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.
Please, if you have nothing to contribute just go and start your own thread.

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:
4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew........... The second is by Mark ............ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:37 AM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

If you think that this thread requires moderator attention, please use the report post button.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.