aa5874

Please how can you accuse me of being dishonest and ridiculous when you yourself ADMIT that the inclusion of the word "MIGHT" AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIES "MIGHT NOT"?

You KNOW the answer to your OWN question?

Is it NOT true that Mark 11.11 might or might not be historically accurate?

ANSWER ME.

You can't answer your own question?

Sheshbazzar

J-D answered this way back in Post #52. The answer, which you have as yet avoided admitting, is obvious.

My question to you regarding Mark 11:11 was posed first.
Still requesting only a polite and on point answer to POST #329 of this thread.
You have since listed and commented on dozens of other verses as to why you find them impossible.
All you are being asked is to SHOW why Mark 11:11 CANNOT be a historically accurate account of an event that really happened.

What is it that so impossible about a 1st century CE Jewish rabbi having simply visited Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple? You tell me.

As you are possibly the only person on the face of this earth that can.



.

aa5874

You accuse me of dishonesty although I have ALREADY shown you SEVENTEEN passages from about 11 chapters of gMark that CANNOT possibly be historically accurate.

Please, LOOK at my list of "passages that cannot be historically accurate" in gMark and you will see that Mark 11.11 is not there.


1. Mark 6.48-49 where Jesus was WITNESSED as he walked on the sea.

2. Mark 9.2-3 where Jesus Transfigured in the presence of his disciples and was talking to the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

3. Mark 16.6 where a man in white clothes claimed Jesus was risen.

4. Mark 1.10-11 The Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird and the TALKING heaven.

5. Mark 2.5 where a man was INSTANTLY cured of Palsy.

6. Mark 3.5 where a man's withered hand was INSTANTLY healed.

7. Mark 4.39 where Jesus VOCALLY and INSTANTLY calmed a sea-storm.

8. Mark 5.13 with Jesus, the Pigs and Demons.

9. Mark 5.41 with the raising of the dead girl.

10. Mark 6.42 with feeding of the 5 thousand men and 12 baskets of left-overs.

11. Mark 7.34 the INSTANT healing of the deaf and dumb with Spit.

12. Mark 8.9 the feeding of the 4 thousand men and 7 baskets of left overs.

13. Mark 8.25 the healing of the Blind man.

14. Mark 9.7 with the TALKING cloud at the transfiguration.

15. Mark 9.25 with the INSTANT healing of the dumb and deaf epileptic.

16. Mark 10.52 with the INSTANT restoration of sight to the blind.

17. Mark 11.20 with the killing of the FIG tree by a curse.


Again, all I can tell you right now is that gMark's Jesus was described as a Phantom IN mARK 6.48-49 and 9.2-3 so I don't really know how a PHANTOM could have been actually in the Jewish Temple of JERUSALEM.

Without any external non-apologetic corroboration for gMark I can ONLY accept gMark's Jesus as a PHANTOM and the disciples as Myth characters.

Why is it impossible that gMark was not history? You tell me.

If gMark was not history then Mark 11.11 is not historically accurate.

If there are some statements about Jesus and the disciples in gMark that might or might not be history then Mark 11.11 might or might not be historically accurate.

On the other hand, any one of the SEVENTEEN passages on my list, like Mark 6.48-49 and 9.2-3, MUST be historically inaccurate even if Jesus was or was NOT actually in the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem AS STATED as stated in Mark 11.11.

I cannot accept gMark as history as it is PRESENTED unless there is non-apologetic corroboration from antiquity.

J-D

Mark 11:11 does not say that a phantom was in the Jewish temple; Mark 11:11 says nothing about any phantoms. The logical relationship of identity only applies to things which really exist; if there was never really a Jesus who was a phantom, then the Jesus referred to in Mark 11:11 cannot be identical with any phantom Jesus.

Sheshbazzar

I didn't ask you about 17 other verses did I?

I asked you about ONE. Mark 11:11

And what is it that so impossible about a 1st century CE Jewish rabbi having simply visited Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple?

Almost any skeptic or atheist rejects all of these supernatural situations as being accurate historical reports, and understand them as being sourced from the legends that had accumulated among the believers and were finally "handed down" to the writers of the Gospels.

These writers were working at putting this legendary material into written form, they were not personally eyewitnesses, thus could only present their best reconstruction from whatever material it was that was "handed down" or 'delivered unto us' (Lu 1:2) and accepted by, and acceptable to their fellow believers (v. 1).
It was not as though they were writing in a vacuum, there was an obligation to present 'those things most surely believed among us'. Not that those things 'held in common' and 'most surely believed' must be accurate. Only 'faithfully' repeated (as it was, it still is)

I don't doubt that the writers themselves were often aware of inconsistencies, but were bound to report oral traditions as they had 'received' them. a lot of 'traditional' route memorization and recitation going on here. it would be unthinkable to vary by much, or much less to ever depart from the mnemonic 'rhythms' of that tradition.
(Why do nominal Christinan believers recite texts in old English, and sing traditional songs that they no longer actually believe?
And often get extremely upset at the change of the least little word? TRADITION and memorization demands conformity. Does now, did then.)

No matter how many wild miracle stories may have been concocted-- (and there are perhaps hundreds of 'gospels' and 'acts' that were written that did not make it into the finally 'received canon')
--These legends are really of no consequence when considering the possibility of there having been a simple flesh and blood human Jewish preacher, or perhaps distorted 'memories' of several apocalyptic preachers melded into one composite figure in the common oral tradition.

It is a total strawman to continue presenting these 'ghost stories' and 'miracle stories' as being germane to any atheist HJers acceptance of the possibility of a real person having existed behind and before all of these silly mythical legends.
No atheist that I know of accepts or believes the supernatural or uncredible portions of these stories as being accurate accounts of real events.

At most, they hold that these stories, and the resulting religion would not have came into being unless there had been an actual person at the beginning.
Often presented as -'being the most parsimonious explanation'- for the phenomenon of christianity. Simply a conflation of a real man and many popular myths, repeated in many oral legends until the time of being committed into writing.

No one expects you to. And it is understood by your fellow atheists that these fantastic elements are fictional and thus CANNOT, and never will be corroborated.

But lets say we did turn up some previously unknown ancient writing, say by some well known and recognized to be historical writer.
Say for example, a preserved lost text of Josephus was to be unearthed in some previously unexplored ruins (and there are yet many) And it contained a detailed first-hand eyewitness, yet hostile, account of Josephus's personal encounter with the Nazarene and his Disciples. And furthermore confirmed that this individual really had by some unknown means (necromancy?) brought dead persons back to life, and restored sight to the blind, and that he had been present to observe many of these strange things first hand.
Would any such corroboration by Josephus (or by anyone else) allow you to accept the Gospel of Mark as being a historical account???

As for me, I take it for granted that gullible religious people believed, repeated, and embellished a lot of weird religious shit back then.

Come to think of it, that still goes on in every fundamentalist congregation I have ever been acquainted with.

And Catholics? Whoa man! MIRACLE! stories are still a dime a dozen, with the approval and blessing of the Clergy and Pope.

The tradition of Christianity sanctioning miracle stories goes back into its furtherest past.

If the present Pope does it, what makes it amazing that Saint Pete did it?






.

aa5874

You don't seem to understand how logics work. Mark 11.11 does not have to say anything about Phantoms once there are details of Jesus in other passages of gMark that describe Jesus as or ACTING as a a Phantom.

It is totally unreasonable and unheard of that a character that is earlier described as a sea-water walker and could transfigure must have the very same information in a later passage in order to be considered the very same character.

All references to Jesus in gMark are about the same character whether walking on the sea, transfigured, resurrected or in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem unless you can FIND a Credible source to contradict gMark.


Pilate was NOT described as a Governor in ALL of gMark, in fact there are virtually No details about Pilate in gMark, yet is quite reasonable to accept that gMark's Pilate was the governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius even though the author of gMark NEVER claimed Pilate was governor during the reign of the Emperor.

Only the name "Pilate" is found in gMark with virtually no details.

Mark 15:1 - gMark 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15.9, 15.12, 15.14, 15.15 ,15.43 and 15.44 do not say anything about governors yet gMark's Pilate is considered the same character as Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea under the reign of Tiberius found in Credible corroborative non-apologetic sources.

aa5874

How many times must I tell you that gMark 11.11 MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true?

Mark 11.11 is NOT in my list of statements about Jesus that CANNOT Possibly be true.

Now, look at a partial list of statements about Jesus that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be historically accurate.

1. Mark 11.11.

aa5874

You don't seem to understand that HJers BELIEVE those silly Ghost stories do contain the history of their HJ of Nazareth.

The very place called Nazareth, the supposed hometown of HJ, is found PRIMARILY in the silly Ghost stories about the Holy Ghost Baby.

I don't IMAGINE the evidence for Myth Jesus. The evidence for Myth Jesus are those very SILLY Ghost stories found in the Extant Codices.

You should know that Myth Fables are silly stories that are non-historical.


I CANNOT accept anything about Jesus in gMark as historically accurate WITHOUT credible non-apologetic sources of antiquity but HJers BELIEVE the Child of the Ghost was really a man based on the same silly Ghost stories.

There is a silly ghost story in gMark about a Holy Ghost Bird and a talking heaven when Jesus the sea-water walker was baptized.

HJers use the very same silly ghost story in gMark and say their HJ of Nazareth was baptized.

Don't you even understand that I do not hold the HJers position? HJers USE information in SILLY Ghost stories for their historical Jesus and do so WITHOUT any corroborative non-apologetic sources.

I already know that people believe ALL SORTS of things about the Silly Ghost stories . I already know what HJers BELIEVE.

Telling me what HJers Believe does NOT help the HJ argument.

HJers believe Jesus was a man. So what? Where is the evidence?

MJers do NOT accept such a belief when HJers use SILLY Ghost stories for history of their HJ of Nazareth.

Sheshbazzar

But that is the point, YOU MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT 'know' what HJers believe. OR that they 'believe ALL SORTS of things about Silly Ghost stories'.

There are literally millions of HJers of every different stripe, from hundreds of different cultural backgrounds. Some are religious (and not necessarily Christian)
and some are non-religious or even outright atheists. (you do 'know' what the term atheist means don't you?)

Acceptance of the view that 1st century preacher likely actually lived is not any organized dogma amongst these non-christians, unbelievers, and atheists.
Each individual has their own personal reasons and ideas as to why they accept that this preacher really did live and influence the people around him.

You DO NOT 'know' what each of all of these millions of individuals think, believe, or how they reason and arrive at their individual conclusions.

I can say very confidently that millions DO NOT accept ANY of these fantastic stories as being valid history, -or employ their contents- to support their views that there was a real individual at the root of the christian religion.

You mention "Nazareth as being the supposed home town of HJ" but you make no allowance for all of those atheist HJers (even on this Forum) who have argued strenuously that this Nazareth tale is just legendary and is of absolutely no value.

YOU seem to be the one 'buying into' and 'promoting' these mythical claims. Which is no problem to me. you are free to muck about with this moldy old horse-shit as much as you like.
It only becomes a problem when you try to wipe that horse-shit thats on your hands, off on everyone else thats around you, by claiming to 'know' the thoughts and positions of everyone else, while engaging in misrepresenting others thoughts.
Again. this is a blatant misrepresentation of the HJer position. YOU DON"T KNOW what every HJer thinks or believes. There IS NO 'official' HJer position.

Many HJers do not accept or 'USE' any information derived from these texts to arrive at their conclusion that there must have been a real person at the root of the christian religion.
They believe that these texts are all late and utterly fictional, yet only came into existence as a result of legends developing around a real, but vaguely remembered Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

If that real Jebus could be brought to the present, even he wouldn't be able to recognize himself as being the christians Jebus.






.

aa5874

The fundamental BELIEFS of HJers are DOCUMENTED. I MUST KNOW what HJers believe to ARGUE AGAINST THEM.

HJers BELIEVE there was an HJ of Nazareth, a human being. Don't you know that?

I am arguing that gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM, a Myth character.

I really don't why you are using such a bizarre line of argument.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus


I consider that the Gospels are SILLY GHOST STORIES about a Phantom and his Myth disciples and HJers use them as their PRIMARY SOURCES to reconstruct their HJ of Nazareth.

In the Gospels it was the Child of a Ghost, a sea-water walker, one who transfigure, God, the Creator of heaven and earth that lived in Nazareth was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

HJers BELIEVE that it was their HJ that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and also crucified under Pilate.

The BELIEF of HJers are derived from the SILLY GHOST stories, the Gospels.

I know what HJers BELIEVE that is why I argue against them. HJers BELIEFS about their HJ of Nazareth is WITHOUT credible historical sources.

The HJ argument is a complete failure.

gMark destroyed it.

gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM.