J-D

If you are making statements about history then you require reliable historical sources. There are no sources from antiquity which meet your standards for reliable historical sources. So you have no basis for making any statements about ancient history.

Sheshbazzar

No. none of these texts describe this 'Jebus' as being a myth, they consistently describe him as being an actual living being.
That description which is given however, logically examined, can only be that of a mythical being.
This is is a big difference.
Those who uncritically read and accept the content of these text at face value, read about the words and acts of what these texts present as an actual living person/being that interacted as described with real living persons in real world situations during the 1st century CE.

These texts themselves do not at any time or place present this -man/god- or the events surrounding his life as being a MYTH as or as being MYTHICAL.
These are repeatedly asserted as being TRUE and MIRACULOUS events and situations that happened in the real world in the 1st century CE.
TRUE. by all laws of reason, logic, and science, most of the key events described in these texts are scientifically, logically, and reasonably IMPOSSIBLE. And are found to be consistent with similar MIRACLE stories that are reported about other deities and men both past and present.
It is therefore reasonable to reject these stories as being false reports and the product of MYTH.

TRUE. There are no sources that are first hand.
And none at all that have not been compromised by scribal alterations either through mistakes, or by attempts at 'harmonization' of variant exemplars, and latter heavy handed attempts at theological doctrinal diddling.

TRUE.







.

aa5874

Well, you have become a victim of your own fallacious statements. How could I be making statements about History if there is NO known credible History?

You KNOW that I am CONSTANTLY making statements about the MYTH FABLES found in the Extant Codices and Church writings.

You have no reliable sources to show that the character called Jesus Christ was an actual figure of ancient history.

You know that I am claiming CONSISTENTLY that Jesus Christ was ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY.

I have written statements in the Extant Codices which clearly state that :

1. Jesus Christ was a Child of a Ghost---Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 (Codex Sinaiticus)

2. Jesus was God---John 1 (Codex Sinaiticus)

3. Jesus was the Creator---John 1 (Codex Sinaiticus)

4. When Jesus was baptized a Ghost like a dove lighted upon him---See all the Gospels. (Codex Sinaiticus)

5. Jesus was in the COMPANY of the DEVIL on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple---Matthew 4, Luke 4.(Codex Sinaiticus)

6. Jesus INSTANTLY healed people with a SPIT and TOUCH technique--See the Synoptics. (Codex Sinaiticus)

7. Jesus WALKED on the Sea of Galilee--See all the Gospels.(Codex Sinaiticus)

8. Jesus TRANSFIGURED--See ALL the Gospels. (Codex Sinaiticus)

9. Jesus was CRUCIFIED UNDER Pilate even though he was Judged to be INNOCENT by the very same Pilate--See all the Gospels. (Codex Sinaiticus)

10. Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD DAY--See ALL the Gospels.(Codex Sinaiticus)

11. Jesus was SEEN alive by his disciples and ATE FOOD after he was Crucified and dead for THREE days----See all the Gospels. (Codex Sinaiticus)

12. Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud--Luke and Acts. (Codex Sinaiticus)

I am claiming Jesus Christ found in the Extant Codices dated to the 4th century is ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY.

Without any credible historical sources to support the Jesus Christ of the Extant Codices I am afraid that I can only consider that Jesus Christ was ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY.

Once you can find CREDIBLE historical sources of antiquity that can CONTRADICT the Extant Codices then I will REVIEW my position.

Only CREDIBLE sources of antiquity can REVERSE my position that Jesus Christ was ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY. There are NONE.

Jesus Christ was ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY and there are FOUR versions of Myth fables found in the Extant Codices.

aa5874

Well, if you think that the Child of a Holy Ghost is NOT the description of a MYTH character then you have some real serious problems.

Mt 1:18 - Mary could NOT ever had a Child FATHERED by a "actual living" Ghost.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke CLEARLY STATED Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost so people who believe Jesus was an "ACTUAL LIVING BEING" have DUPED themselves.

ONCE the authors CLEARLY state that Jesus was FATHERED by a GHOST then It was ABSOLUTELY not necessary at all for anyone to even imagine Jesus was an "ACTUAL LIVING BEING".

Please, please, please, EXPLAIN why a character that was FATHERED by a GHOST should be accepted by anyone as an "ACTUAL LIVING BEING"?

But, you have CONTRADICTED yourself.

LOOK.

archibald

icardfacepalm:

Toto

What's your problem with this? Are you unaware that the Quest for the Historical Jesus is in fact a product of the Enlightenment?

archibald

He didn't say Historical Jesus. He said Human.

In any case, are you agreeing that people didn't start to think he was historical until the enlightenment?

If not, the statement is so meaningless, it's not even wrong.

People didn't, for example, search for his tomb?

The traditional location of Golgotha derives from its identification by Helena, the mother of Constantine I, in 325. A few yards nearby, Helena also identified the location of the Tomb of Jesus and claimed to have discovered the True Cross; her son, Constantine, then built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre around the whole site. In 333, the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, entering from the east described the result:

“On the left hand is the little hill of Golgotha where the Lord was crucified. About a stone's throw from thence is a vault [crypta] wherein his body was laid, and rose again on the third day. There, at present, by the command of the Emperor Constantine, has been built a basilica; that is to say, a church of wondrous beauty.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary

icardfacepalm:icardfacepalm:

...and I have a sneaky feeling Helena was not the first.

TedM

Very good Earl. You actually are responding to archibald's post, but his is probably similar to something I would have written too. Your versus require an explanation, but I will leave that to archibald and others to respond..

Hope you feel better soon.

Ted

TedM

How does the bolded part work--they decide to interpret the gospels differently for political reasons? What about the folks that already interpreted the gospels as non-historical allegories--are they going to forget that because some 'thinkers' decide otherwise? I would say that Catholic editor did a terrible job of incorporating the new interpretation of the gospels into Paul. It just doesn't seem to work, toto. Also, could you put some date ranges on your items?

Iskander

Why? Nothing requiring an answer was said.