gurugeorge

Fully agreed aa.

archibald

Ok. If you make an analogy with someone writing a superman story who believes (rightly or wrongly) that the story is based on a real figure, then that's fair enough, becaue I think it's hard to argue that this is not the most likekly scenario for Jesus.

Of course they're not evidentiary of a human being. If you take one thing away from the discussions, please let it be the understanding that whilst this may be the case for a lot of 'everyday' people who don't give it much thought, and possibly some liberal christians, it is (no offense) an absolute strawman for anyone outside those categories, including, I'm guessing most hjers here, and any good scholars.

Why is it that so many people, on this forum, seem to automatically think that the other person's position has to do with assumptions? Virtually every Hjer? George, I suggest that this is a delusion on your part of some sort.

gurugeorge

Right, so the question is, was the "real figure" in their mind a real ordinary human being, or a real (to them) superhero? And then there's a further question: was there a real ordinary human being?

Suggestion acknowledged and denied. I calls it how I sees it.

The HJ position is seldom held in the only way it can be - as a plausible but not terribly well-supported explanatory hypothesis. It's usually held as something so goshdarned obvious that anybody who disagrees must be retarded (as per our good friend MacLavera who just left - there's usually a MacLavera a week here on BC&H, you've stuck around much longer and look like you're caught in the tarpit now - welcome to Hell, BWAHAHAHAHA :devil1: )

See those who hold it that way? They're usually the ones who are committing the petitio principii fallacy I'm pointing out.

J-D

Hence it's not a valid analogy. There are grounds available for saying that nothing the stories say about Superman is historical, whereas ...... there are not grounds available for saying that nothing the stories say about Jesus is historical (although there are excellent grounds for dismissing some of what the stories say about Jesus as not being historical).I don't know whether confusing a question with an assertion is a 'classic' mistake, but it is a mistake that I encounter around this place with depressing frequency.

'Are any of the statements the stories make about Jesus historically true?' is a question.

'Some of the statements the stories make about Jesus are historically true?' is an assertion.

The question is mine, the assertion isn't. If the assertion is a mistake, that doesn't prove the question is.But I never said that any part of the stories about Jesus was historical. Go back and read what I said. I said that some parts of the stories could not be historical while other parts might or might not be historical. I said it several times, I don't think it's easy to miss.

aa5874

HJers are ASSUMERS. They assume this of Jesus, assume that and assume the other.

You assume Jesus was a man even though you are not certain why you assume so.

I say Jesus was a Ghost story because it is certainly recorded in sources of antiquity for hundreds of years.

archibald

Fair do's George. If attacking a caricature of the HJ argument makes you happy.....

J-D

I am going to treat the verses which say that he was conceived by a spirit as saying that he was conceived by a spirit, and I am going to treat the verses which do not say that he was conceived by a spirit as not saying that he was conceived by a spirit.Not every verse says that he was the child of a ghost.Many verses describe him as behaving in ways which are not specifically the behaviour of a ghost child.I am not attempting to ascertain anything about a ghost child.A list of all the statements about Jesus in the Gospels that might or might not be historically correct would be far too long to compile or to post here, so I'll just give a few assorted examples: Matthew 9:14; Mark 1:9; Luke 23:7; John 19:38. If that's not enough for you, I can easily supply a few more.You really don't know what I know. You can only accept my claims about what I know.True, but so what?

aa5874

Matthew 1 claim the mother of Jesus was found with child the Holy Ghost.

Mark 6.49 claimed Jesus walked on the sea and Mark 9.2 claimed Jesus TRANSFIgURED.

Luke 1 claimed Jesus was the Holy thing of a Holy Ghost.

John 1 claimed Jesus was God and the Creator.

Please show me the verses in the same Gospels which deny that Jesus was Fathered by a Holy Ghost was God and the creator.


How many verses say the mother of Jesus was with Child of a Holy Ghost? How many verses say Jesus was on the pinnacle of the Temple with Satan? How many verses say Jesus walked on water and was BELIEVED to be a Spirit? How many verses say Jesus was TRANSFIGURED?

Tell me the Specifics of Ghost behaviour and how you determine what a Ghost can do.


What specifically do you want to ascertain about Jesus the Ghost Child in the NT?

Your assertion is FALSE and ILLOGICAL. I may be able to prove that your claims about what you know are false.

J-D

If it's difficult to distinguish, then it's going to be difficult to find good grounds to reach a conclusion in either direction.

J-D

Yes, it does (or 'Holy Spirit' in some translations), and that cannot be historically correct.Yes, and those statements cannot be historically correct.And, yet again, that can't be historically correct.And, yet again, that can't be historically correct.I never said there were any.I haven't counted the ones that do, but I know they don't all.I haven't counted the ones that do, but I know they don't all.I haven't counted the ones that do, but I know they don't all.I haven't counted the ones that do, but I know they don't all.I know many things which human beings who are not ghosts can do, such as eating, walking, and talking. Whether ghosts can also do these things or not, a statement which describes somebody as eating, walking, or talking is describing behaviour which is not specific to ghosts and which is possible for human beings who are not ghosts.I am not attempting to ascertain anything about Jesus the Ghost Child in the New Testament.If you think you can, go ahead.