aa5874

]

Are you claiming that Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18 is not bullsh*t? And that Mary talking to an angel is not bullsh*t?

Jesus the Christ is based on bullsh*t.
All the bullsh*t is in the NT.

Look at bullsh*t, Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God'.

More bullsh*t, Matthew 1:18, Now the birth of Jesus Christ is on this wise; When Mary as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

There is no known extra-biblical bullsh*t about Jesus the Christ, the only bullsh*t about Jesus the Christ comes from the NT.

Jesus the Christ is bullsh*t.

Prove to me that Jesus the Christ is not bullsh*t, instead of ranting and raving.

You must start thinking for yourself instead of relying on the conclusion of others. Jesus lived because the Pope is infallible, Jesus lived because Bertrand Russell thinks so, absolute bullsh*t. There is too much bullsh*t in the NT for me to accept that.

aa5874

Well prove to me that Jesus was real and I will consider whether or not he was the son of a ghost.

I know if Alexander the Great was a real person, he was not the son of a god. I want you to direct me to a passage in any writing where Alexander the Great is confirmed to be the son of a god, where this birth is explained in any detail.

Jesus the Christ has never been established to be real, with any corroborated evidence, he has been, so far, only believed to be real.

Only when characters has been established or accepted to be real, that statements about them can be properly evaluated for truth or falsehood. For example, it is futile to claim that Superman was not from Krypton but from Mars, since there is no planet called Krypton, when Superman is established as fiction.

Jesus the Christ is introduced in the NT as a pre-existing supernatural being, born under biological and physical impossible conditions which I accept as fictitious. Everything else about Jesus is based on this fundamentally fictitious event.

Jesus the Christ cannot be considered to be a real person because Alexander the Great was falsely thought to be the son of a god.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless and without merit.

Toto

I can't prove that Jesus was real. I just want you to be clear on logical reasons for the claim that he was not real.

Birth of Alexander the Great

Like Jesus, Alexander was claimed to be the son of a god and a human mother. Of course, this was not true, and can't be proven in either case. So why should it make any difference?

ok

.

You are aware, are you not, that the gospel of Mark does not contain any supernatural birth scenes? Would you accept that the Jesus described in the gospel of Mark could be based on a real person?

Yes, but the case of Alexander shows that you need more arguments beyond the alleged supernatural birth.

You are being a broken record again. This forum is for discussion, not repeated assertions.

aa5874

So is Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 clear about the birth of Jesus the Christ, do you understand that these are the NT'S description of the circumstances surrounding his birth? Are they logical, do they appear true, do you accept them as reasonable?

I do not accept Matthew and Luke's explanation, is that illogical?


You seem to contradict yourself, you say that it is not true that Alexander is the son of a god, and immediately after you say it cannot be proven. I do not understand your position, how did you know what is true about Alexander the Great?

The site clearly states that Alexander the Great is the son of King Philip and Queen Olympias, however Alexander thought he was the son of a god.

However, Jesus the Christ is the complete opposite. The NT clearly states he was the pre-existing son of a god and was sent to earth by his father to become human.

There are extra-biblical writings of Alexander the Great, placing him in the century in which he is supposed to have lived, I cannot find any credible extra-biblical writing that placed Jesus the Christ in the century in which he was supposed to have lived.


Well let's examine the book called Mark and see if Jesus the Christ is based on a real person or a god.

Mark1:1, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 1:10-13, 'And straightway coming out of the water, he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him,
And there came a voice, saying, Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.
And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wildernes and he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan and was with wild beast, and the angels ministered unto him'.

The gospel of Mark is clearly based on the Son of a God called Jesus.

Toto

Stop changing the subject. The birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are mythological. No one is trying to argue here that they are not.

Alexander the Great was NOT the son of a God. But it is written that he was. The fact that Alexander has mythology written about him does not make him mythological.

That site is not holy scripture. You are not required to accept the gospels as holy scripture.

Stop changing the subject. That's a different argument. You were trying to argue that the MERE fact that mythology was written about Jesus means that he is a myth. You might have other, more valid reasons for believing that Jesus is a myth, but the mere fact that someone made up a story about him being born of a virgin and the holy spirit BY ITSELF does not make him a myth.

Yes, but after this, Jesus walks around Galilee, preaches to disciples, and does other routine, believable things. Showing that one part of Mark is mythological does not rule out the possibility that other parts are not. Do you disagree with this?

aa5874

Stop changing what subject? The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless and without merit. That has always been the subject, not Alexander the Great.


.

I accepted the gospels as fiction, unadulterated fiction, long before your advice. Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 are fundamental fiction and I accept that no body was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the unknown Mary.



[qoute]Yes, but after this, Jesus walks around Galilee, preaches to disciples, and does other routine, believable things. Showing that one part of Mark is mythological does not rule out the possibility that other parts are not. Do you disagree with this?[/QUOTE]

Now, you are accepting the gospels as holy scripture. You have established, based on the gospels, that Jesus was in Galilee and preached to his disciples. You have just gone against your own advice.
And I get the impression from you that all believable events are true, especially when it is from holy scriptures.

By the way, the Jesus you claimed that was in Galilee was his grandfather Heli or Jacob?

Toto

Let's try another tack. What is your theory of the origins of Christianity?

spin

Your ranting and raving in the form of illogical claims such as "It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false" is hysterical!

You need to get out a little. You've been kooped up in your own defensive threads too long to be able to comment sensibly. If I cited an intelligent person who is outside this forum, it was in an effort to provide you with a little independent input, as you seem unable to process what you get here.


spin

Ben C Smith

Toto, spin, and Amaleq13, I tip my hat to your almost insane patience on this thread. I freely admit I would have been out of commission many posts ago.

Ben.

aa5874

Please, Toto don't change the subject. We dealing with the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ.