aa5874

Why do you compound your error? Why?

The written Jesus story DESTROYS your claim.

Matthew 4 I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve by making the same blatant erroneous claim.

Jesus was ALL over Galilee, Decapolis, Capernaun, Cana, Gadara, Sea of Galilee, and in Jerusalem, Bethany in Tyre and Sidon , and Samaria with THOUSANDS of followers in the Gospels.

You seem incapable of admitting your error.

I really can't see the point in me continuing to discuss anything with you when you refuse to admit the written statements about Jesus.

I can ONLY tell you what is in the Bible about Jesus.

I can ONLY show you the WRITTEN evidence from antiquity.

aa5874

Please, Please, Please, I did NOT claim that the NT represented all the evidence.

For my MYTH Jesus theory, I have used writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Athenagoras, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Origen, Felix Municius, Arnobius, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Julian the Emperor and others.

So far, the ABUNDANCE of evidence from those writings SUPPORT the Myth Jesus theory.

It is NOT necessary to use ALL the evidence since there is ENOUGH evidence to support the MYTH Jesus theory.

Not even in court trials ALL evidence is used.

By the way, based on Julian, it would seem your friend Eusebius did NOT forged the writings of Josephus.

Julian the Emperor did NOT know of any well-known writer who wrote about Jesus up to the time he wrote "Against the Galileans" when it is assumed Eusebius was ALREADY dead.

fatpie42

1. So? Like I said in the OP, that just shows that stories of Jesus were mythical, not that there was no historical figure behind them. It doesn't help the argument for HJ, but it doesn't rule it out either.

2. That's a pretty dodgy argument seeing as the very same person claimed that Jesus was a man too. It's the gospel that he claims doesn't come from man.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by sources for an historical Jesus. If there were any sources that were uncontroversially for an historical Jesus, there would be no debate. There are zero non-Christian sources for Jesus, but there are plenty of sources from Christians or referencing the beliefs of Christians (albeit no witnesses to an historical figure).


1 out of 3 ain't bad, I guess....

fatpie42

Make your mind up. :banghead:

fatpie42

You think the gospels are true? :constern02:

aa5874

The stories of Jesus ADMITTEDLY do NOT help the HJ argument but FULLY SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus argument and does NOT rule out that Jesus was MYTH.

The claims in Galatians 1.1 and 1.10-12 that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man and that the Pauline Gospel was NOT from man but from the resurrected Jesus do NOT help the HJ argument but SUPPORT the Myth Jesus theory and does NOT rule out that Jesus was Myth.

The ADMITTANCE that there are ZERO non-christian sources and NO witnesses for the Historical Jesus Hurts the HJ argument but is perfectly COMPATIBLE with the Myth Jesus theory and certainly does NOT rule out that Jesus was Myth.

Myths have ZERO eye-witnesses just like Jesus. Jesus is the Perfect Myth.


You are compounding your errors.

The Myth Jesus theory is FULLY secured by the evidence from antiquity.

You have UTTERLY failed to show that Myth Jesus can be ruled out and have UTTERLY failed to show any credible source for HJ.

The HJ argument has ZERO help.

The Myth Jesus theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

fatpie42

I can't rule out the existence of God either, but that doesn't mean that it's true.

That's probably because I don't think there is one. But the lack of evidence for one, doesn't confirm the truth of the other.

There is a third possibility i.e. that we don't have enough evidence to decide whether Jesus was historical or not.

Of course, as I noted in the OP, the evidence we have is clearly mythological in nature. But sadly that doesn't end the debate.

My problem with a lot of your arguments is that you seem to treat mythological accounts like historical accounts at the same time as using them to deny historicity. Peter denying Jesus is a tool within a mythological story. It doesn't mean that there was ever a historical Peter going around telling everyone that he denied Jesus.

aa5874

Well, I rule OUT the existence of the God of the Jews. I rule out ALLAH. I rule out ALL GODS that people BELIEVE in today because they HAVE ZERO evidence for what they say.

I don't stop people from BELIEVING anything about THEIR God.

I just don't accept what people say when they have ZERO evidence.

Well, present the evidence for the third possibility. Right now, the available evidence SUPPORTS MYTHOLOGY.

I really don't know what you can confirm WITHOUT evidence.

What truth can you confirm about the historical Jesus?

Well, I can ONLY argue for MYTH Jesus based on the MYTH evidence. Sadly, Some people here want to argue about their imagination all the time.

I really don't have time for imaginative possibilities.

I CAN ONLY use the WRITTEN STATEMENTS in SOURCES of antiquity. I do not make stuff up. I regard Sources of antiquity as EVIDENCE and the EVIDENCE depicts Jesus as a figure of Mythology.

I don't know what you want to use for your arguments. I really don't care what you think. I don't post because of you.

I KNOW where to FIND the EVIDENCE to SUPPORT MYTH Jesus. I VEHEMENTLY argue for MJ. That is MY JOB because I have seen Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12, and 1 Cor. 15.