Sheshbazzar

Hi Adam, so nice of you to drop in. :wave:
and Lo and Behold! For once without one of your huge blocks of quote-mined verse numbers.

outhouse

we have paul, josephas, gospels, all telling of a culture and a man not their own, they have no reason to make up stories of a failed messiah.

I dont imagine this, the people who have studied this the most have come up with these findings like Bart.


there is nothing imagined in my view and everything I have stated not only has written evidence, but anthopology backing it as well.



the only thing I have off normal is a little more zealot thrown in then most scholars, mainly because I view the evidence we have as extremely biased

outhouse

I like both your views.


if I didnt argue different points I wouldnt learn.


problem is, at a myth site like this, I have to spend more time repeating known context fighting oddball views instead of digging deeper into different scholarships

Sheshbazzar

And all of these writings have been examined in depth.
'Paul' as often as not turns out to not have been 'Paul' at all. Josephus has been 'doctored' by the Christians, the Gospels are simply religious mythology.

Certainly the Gospel writers and 'Paul' had good reason to make up stories of a failed messiah.
It sold to the religious as a explanation for the fall of The Temple, it allowed those with a miserable guilt complex to luxuriate in it. Those that were lonely an imaginary friend that would always be on their side. Those with delusions of grandeur to believe they were really royal kings. Those that were oppressed the fantasy that they would eventually inherit everything, and Those that feared dying a imaginary escape mechanism.
The Greeks loved these tragedies, couldn't get enough of them.
With something for every taste it was a very lucrative business to peddle it to all.
Still is, ask Benny Hin, Kenneth Copeland, Edie Long, or the Pope. They all know.

aa5874

Again, you IMAGINE your own history.

In the NT, IT IS CLAIMED that WITHOUT the Resurrection that there would be NO Salvation and NO Christian Faith. See 1 Cor. 15.

And further, the crucifixion of Jesus was a LOVE STORY.

The Crucifixion was a GIFT of LOVE--the GREATEST LOVE.

John 15:13 KJVRomans 10:9 KJV Well, some Christians Scholars will tell you that JESUS was RAISED FROM THE DEAD. They have their EDUCATED BISHOPS and Most Bishops who study the NT is expected to claim Jesus was RAISED from the dead.and

If there was actual credible evidence for an HJ then IT WOULD HAVE BEEN plastered all over this site.

LegionOnomaMoi

It is. But take a look at your approach to probability theory, where proofs actually exist. The evidence is there, but you ignore it. None so blind as those who will not see.

aa5874

Where??? Where??? What evidence???

Jesus was a Myth in Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15.

Can you see this??

Matthew 14:25 KJV

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, I can see you've created a false dichotomy between the genres of ancient historiography and myth, not to mention your view that, contrary to virtually every theory/philosophy of historiography, we cannot infer, deduce, or otherwise apply logic and reasoning when it comes to history. We are only allowed to make blanket statements concerning the entirety of some piece of evidence such as a text, rather than follow any historiographical method.

Unfortunately for you, your artificial dichotomy falls apart approached from either end. If we state that the NT is all myth, and therefore cannot contain historical information, then the same is true for other myths like the Iliad. Of course, these myths are the only evidence we had for Troy (as later historians relied on these myths when discussing troy). However, while we stilll don't have any more reliable historical accounts than the Iliad, we found Troy. So either even myth can contain history, or our archaeological excavations of Troy never happened.

And as long as we are on Troy, approaching your genre dichotomy from the other side, we find myth all over the place in the writings of ancient historians. Once again, we can either disregard them all, and say we know virtually nothing about the past, or we can apply reasoning, logic, probability, and other methods employed by historians.

Sheshbazzar

Troy is a bit more tangible than one invisible man.
A city if it ever was real, has some prospect of its remains being located.

There is no J-C whose remains can ever be produced. If such remains were produced, then they absolutely could not be those of that J-C that is described in the NT texts.

Adam

You've moved the goal posts. You're talking about Biblical Jesus. Outhouse and I (and almost everyone) say Historical Jesus existed. We deny MJ. You can't deny HJ by claiming that "historical" remains of BJ by definition cannot exist. (Not to mention that Adoptionist or other Jewish Christian beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with an archaeological discovery of the man Jesus of the gospels.)

By the way, as a person who has never excavated Troy, it's quite legitimate for me to wonder whether the structures Schliemann discovered might have been of some city other than the Troy of the Iliad.