Johnny Skeptic

In other words, what you think is simply mistaken is essentially the idea that only accounts without claims that pigs fly and play bridge can serve as real historical evidence. Pigs flying and playing bridge is no more odd and unverifiable than the alleged miracles that Jesus performed.

aa5874

But, HJers just simply need to show that Jesus was wholly human when he was supposedly on earth.

In effect, HJers must show that the description of and the events surrounding Jesus are all fundamentally false and was known to be false as found in the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings.

Or HJers must show that every contemporary of antiquity including his parents, siblings and relatives simply forgot that Jesus was wholly human and fundamentally was not anything like or did not do anything as described.

In the NT some Jesus claimed he was the TRUTH and the LIFE, if he was wholly human, HJers need to explain why his supposed followers wrote a pack of lies about his entire life.

And after HJers have comprehensively shown that the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings are fundamentally erroneous about the TRUTH and LIFE of the supposed Jesus, they must produce a credible source of antiquity to show Jesus was indeed wholly human.

This is some Jesus

Joh 14:6 - And this some author of gMatthew
Mt 1:18 -

What is the TRUTH about the WAY and LIFE of Jesus?

In what credible source of antiquity can the truth of an wholly human Jesus be found?

HJers must know the credible historical source since they all agree that the NT, the Church and Apocryphal writings do not contain the truth about the way and the life of a wholly human Jesus.

It must be obvious by now that if HJers had good arguments that they would have presented them 1800 years ago.

They have none. It is no longer a secret.

Solo

Wrong, Roger. First, the great majority of scholarly opinion holds that Josephus was at minimum tampered with, and that, in the civilized rules of inquiry means that one cannot accept Josephus as bona fide evidence. A forgery is a forgery is a forgery. The contempation as to what of the two Josephus mentions of Jesus was genuine and what was not, is an exercise for people whose judgment is lacking in a fundamental way. The intelligent and decent researcher would have to step away from testimonies he/she knows are tainted.

Schweitzer said of the TF that it is 'inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be presented as credible evidence'. The shorter mention, ('him called Christ') Schweitzer thought uncertain whether it was genuine, but that did not change his view that 'Josephus is ruled out as a reliable secular witness to Jesus'.

True, but by the same token no rational approach to anything consists of accepting evidence one knows has been tampered with and then in place of analyzing actual data, trying to speculate what the actual data may have been.

....or whatever passes for the three in a Jesuit college.

It is a matter of no small irony that Schweitzer found, one hundred years ago - when everyone read Virgil in high school - the partisan debates for and against historicity of Jesus marked by generally 'undistinguished level of scholarship'. He chided the historicists for 'thoughtless popularism of modern theology' and the mythicists (Drews specifically) as hopelessly overrating their hasty conclusions as historical facts. Schweitzer believed there was a real possibility that Jesus did not exist and urged Christians to face this eventuality squarely and honestly.

Why wouldn't you, Roger ? Your faith not strong enough ?

If it isn't, imagine the faith of the first few who knew there was no 'real' Jesus, that He was a just a phantasm that comes and goes and that others scorn and persecute (in those who believe in it), as they would anything or anyone they do not understand. Imagine that as the faith that conquered the world.

Well, Roger, the thing to know about the early Christian claims about Christ is this: it was not as much about what they said; it was what they did as his imitators. It was that which impressed the readers of Virgil.

Regards,
Jiri

ynquirer

Why wrong? The great majority of the scholarly opinion put their money on the historical Jesus, and this time you don’t accept the opinion. Why should anyone accept the opinion when it supports your case? Besides, Alice Wheely, who is the scholar that has most thoroughly studied the TF and its critics, concludes it may well be authentic. Why should anyone accept the opinion of whoever are more numerous yet possibly less learned?

It is still an open issue, and your attempt to close it that dogmatically sounds – forgive me – sectarian, and appellations to what “the intelligent and decent researcher” would have to do in relation to the TF actually are insults to intelligence.

aa5874

But, then does Alice Wheely's opinion that the "TF" may be authentic held by the great majority of scholars?

Minimalist

Isn't that the primary purpose of religion, Spin?

ynquirer

You ought to propose a poll among scholars expert on the topic to have the answer you request - I guess.

aa5874

So, when you claimed that the great majority of scholars put their money on the historical Jesus you must have done a poll or you just guessed?

ApostateAbe

The idea that Paul thought of Jesus as a merely spiritual figure is another wishful conclusion of MJ advocates, because it does not fit the evidence, unless another large set of strange interpretations and special redactions and forgeries are accepted, in which case it fails Occam's razor once more (I am using the principle perfectly correctly). Paul thought of Jesus as both a human and a spiritual being. He ate bread, drank wine, was crucified, killed, buried, and was resurrected from the dead. On top of that, his Jesus has a striking resemblance to the Jesus character of the synoptic gospels. If you want to propose that Paul's Jesus was starkly different from the Jesus of the contemporary accounts of other Christians, that is fine--you'll just need evidence, that's all. It makes perfect sense that Paul's Jesus, if he is the Paul's Jesus that is commonly accepted and not the special Jesus of Doherty and G. A. Wells, would have a literal brother.

aa5874

A God/man is a special creature. Special creatures can be raised from the dead. The Synoptic, Johanine and Pauline Jesus was special, it was raised from the dead.

And again, you can forget about James since fragments attributed to Papias indicate that the parents of the so-called James the bishop was not the parents of the supposed Lord.

And once you admit that Paul's Jesus has a striking resemblance to the Jesus of the Synoptics then Paul's Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the virgin Mary.