Larkin31

Well, somewhat, except that I may have no idea what I am talking about. But you are happy to hear my comment regardless of my reasons for saying so.

So, are you seeking additional evidence, or not?



Sort of. Yes, in a certain manner of speaking, yes. But I let Christians say how they mean this, rather than you. THIS is my point.


I am not making an argument for the historicity of Jesus. I am suggesting that you let Christians define how both flesh (mortal) and spirit (divine) can exist in the same body. This was a standard understanding of the church in which I was raised. You seem to be saying that this is impossible, logically. I consider it highly improbable, but not logically impossible (senseless, to use your word).

So, you accept the text when it makes your point, but reject the text--in its entirety--to make a point against the other side. Should you be doing that?

Toto

Not exactly, He is pointing out that the written evidence for these people does not describe a historical person, but a supernatural mythical entity. The proponents of a historical Jesus read this as if there must be a natural person behind these mythical tales, but this reading is eisegesis.

The HJ proponents claim that these are reasonable inferences from the documents. aa5874 either does not agree or does not understand the concept.

Is there any point to leaving this thread open?

Larkin31

:huh:

Toto

What does that mean? Do you not understand what I wrote, or are you not sure if the thread should be left open?

Larkin31

The latter, sorry.

I agree with what you first summarized.

aa5874

I have more information to establish that the HJ is a most SENSELESS [IRRATIONAL] proposition. There are literally hundreds of sources of antiquity that I am yet to post to show once and for all that there is virtually no hope for the HJ.

Why do you seem not to understand what the discussion is about?

If you think, after having examined the NT and Church writings, that the HJ makes SENSE why don't you join the discussion and put up your arguments and show the sources of antiquity to support your arguments?

After all this is a discussion board. Someone proposes A and another may propose NOT A.

Larkin31

You're going to post "hundreds of sources"?? I actually find this hard to believe. Why would you do that? Wouldn't the sheer number argue against your point?

Toto

Why do you not understand that I do understand?

This shows that you don't understand what I understand.

This is a privately run discussion board, and when the moderator decides that the discussion has no social value, the thread can be closed.

If you want to have a discussion, you have to understand the opposing point of view. Your opponents do not claim that there is a source in antiquity that directly describes a merely human historical Jesus. They only claim that a historical Jesus can be inferred with some degree of probability to be the source of the mythical stories about him. This is the argument that you have not touched.

aa5874

My argument is that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition those who oppose my position can post their arguments.

How in the world can I make an argument for the existence of Jesus?

My arguments are AGAINST the historicity of Jesus.

People who believe it is probable that Jesus exist are the ones who TOUCH and become IMMERSED in the arguments for his historicity.

Would you expect Galileo to TOUCH the argument that it is probable that the earth is flat while at the same time to be IMMERSED in the theory that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.

I am IMMERSED in my arguments, with SOLID support from antiquity, that Jesus of the NT was just a story written to be believed but was non-historical.

A person who proposes A must provide arguments for A.

And those who propose NOT A touch arguments for NOT A.

Now, perhaps you can touch the argument with support from historical credible sources of antiquity that the HJ is not a most SENSELESS proposition.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After having examined the NT and Church writings it is clear to me that the evidence of an HJ position is extremely weak or virtually ZERO.

Some have put forward the notion that Jesus was just an apocalyptic preacher but such a notion cannot be supported by any historical evidence.

It cannot be shown that apocalyptic preachers were ever deified in Jerusalem, that is there is no history of people being deified by Jews even if there were a Jewish KING, like King David, or as a Messiah, like Simon Bar Cocheba.

History will show, based on Josephus, that apocalyptic preachers may been have called madmen and beaten to a pulp. And further, based on Josephus, Jesus would be likely not to have had a single follower or disciple but would be a loner.

And, if we examine the NT, the very teachings of Jesus appear to show some high degree of madness since he taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised from the dead on the third day.

If Jesus son of Ananus was declared a madman just for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem", it is far more likely that Jesus would have been declareto be utterly insanely mad for teaching people that he would be raised from the dead within 72 hours of his death.

Jesus the son of Ananus, based on Josephus, was not deified and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision before the Fall of the Temple.

Now, based on Josephus, there was a character called John the Baptist who used to baptise people and had a large following, he was executed by Herod, yet he was not deified and worshiped as a God by Jews and asked to forgive the sins of Jews and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

The evidence from external sources appear to augment the theory that there was no apocalyptic preacher in Jerusalem who would or could have been deified by Jews.

The Jews have no precedent or tradition of deification and there were far better candidates to deify than an apocalyptic preacher whose words appear to be those of a madman.

Mr 9:31 - It is not true or it is hardly unlikely that a MADMAN was deified in Jerusalem and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews, and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

The HJ is a most SENSLESS proposition, and after examining the NT and Church writings the proposition is MADNESS. Jesus the MADMAN, son of Ananus, was not deified.