arnoldo

Jesus could've been a time traveler from the future and had access to advanced technology which would explain the miracles and such. Just because you judge something to be implausible doesn't mean it didn't happen (see radical logic's argument below) :constern01:

aa5874

But, let us examine the life of Jesus as presented by the NT and Church writings.

Please identify any event with respect to Jesus that you know is NOT entirely mythical.

1. The conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.

2. The temptation of Jesus by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple.

3. The miracles of Jesus where he used spit to make the blind see.

4. The raising of Lazarus after being dead for 4 days and rotting.

5. The walking on water by Jesus during a sea storm.

6. The feeding of 9000 men with some loaves and a few fish.

7. The transfiguration with the once dead Moses and Elijah.

8. The trial and crucifixion of Jesus where false witnesses were used and Jesus was still exonerated.

9. The resurrection of Jesus after the third day.

10. The ascension of Jesus when he went through the clouds.

Please show the evidence that Jesus was historical and not mythical.

Now, that you have made a counter proposal that the HJ is A most SENSIBLE proposal I eagerly await your historical sources for your HJ.

And I hope that your are not going to use your imagination and make imaginary "natural" explanations.

After review of the NT and Church writings the information of antiquity suggest that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposal.

kcdad

The nonsense is your inability to interpret prose. You are far more literal than any fundamentalist I have ever met.
Writing, even the Jabberwocky of Lewis Carroll, must be interpreted by an intelligent, critical mind... OR it ends up meaningless, as your analysis proves itself.

Do you really not get the difficulty of translating a oral culture into a written record? Do you really not understand that Judaism is predominantly an oral culture that later tried to record their oral histories into written form because of the exiles and captivities to which the Jewish people were subjected...

Jesus didn't write anything and his teachings were oral... parables and storytelling.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

How can the son of a ghost have flesh and bones? Why did the disciples think he was a phantom even before the alleged crucixion and resurrection, when he went walking upon the waves? How did reusrrected Jesus get behind locked doors if he had flesh and bones? Did demons really talk to him? How did he waft into the heavens? Could he really read hearts and minds?

Is it possible that 1% could be true?

aa5874

The NT and Church writings are clearly about HOLY GHOST MAN born sometime around the beginning of the 1st century.

The activities of HOLY GHOST MAN, called Jesus of Nazareth, can be found in HUNDREDS of sources of antiquity probable the MOST well-documented MYTHICAL entity in all of EXTANT history.

HOLY GHOST MAN was made an official God of Rome by Constantine in the 4th century after his followers were accused of being atheists and cannibals.

We have the full "history" of HOLY GHOST MAN.

As I wrote already, there are hundreds of sources of antiquity that clearly and unambiguously described the nature of HOLY GHOST MAN.

Look at Matthew 1.18 again. This is the description of the conception of HOLY GHOST MAN.

Mt 1:18 -

Behold HOLY GHOST MAN.

So, we have in effect all the parameters to reasonably conclude HOLY GHOST MAN was a myth. HOLY GHOST MAN wrote nothing, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Now, I will show that it is YOU who far exceeds the fundamentalists with your literal HJ.

1. The fundamentalists claim that HOLY GHOST MAN was God.

2. YOU claim HOLY GHOST MAN was LITERALLY HUMAN.

It is clear you FAR EXCEED the fundamentalists, you seem unable to tell the difference between myth and fiction.

Now, this is the reality. This my is position. The NT is about a MYTH called HOLY GHOST MAN.

But, YOU and the fundamentalist vehemently disagree with ME and put forward a most absurd notion that HOLY GHOST MAN was really REAL, and only his FLESH is in question.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since hundreds of sources of antiquity that have survived depicted Jesus as HOLY GHOST MAN.

kcdad

Do you just cut and paste the same post over and over again?

Can you reproduce the following ... Xc43Nt

aa5874

You may have become dis-oriented . You are not making sense. Explain your outburst....."Xc43Nt",, OR are you talking in "tongues"???

Now, let us deal with the OP. The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

Why do you believe, like the fundamentalists, HOLYGHOST MAN was literally REAL with human FLESH?

I have repeated over and over again that HOLYGHOST MAN was a MYTH and have produced sources of antiquity that describe him as the offspring of the HOLY GHOST.

It must never be forgotten that Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome, was in the arms of HOLYGHOST MAN while he walked on water during a sea-storm and that a TALKING cloud recognised HOLYGHOST MAN as a beloved SON.

This is found in gMatthew [KJV].


And now the TALKING-CLOUD.

Mt 17:5 - Please tell me why YOU and the fundamentalists believe there is historical truth about HOLYGHOST MAN?

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition after the NT and Church writings have been examined.

kcdad

<edited>

I asked a simple question any human being could answer...
"Can you reproduce the following ... Xc43Nt"

Watch ... Xc43Nt... see how easy that was?

jakejonesiv

I wonder if you'd do me the kindness of showing here, if I may ask, not only what does your question have to do with the OP, but the pertinence to aa5874's demands for legitimate and warranted information that are the necessary prerequisite to any response or further questions that aa5874 may ask? You are ignoring the fact that it is the conclusion about the meaning used in the particular way it is used that according to Xc43Nt, has to signify in these passages that Xc43Nt draws from this assertion that needs to be evaluated not the assertion of where and of whom Jesus -- to be precise -- if Historical Jesus even knew the difference bewteen an aorist middle masculine singular genitive or a aorist middle masculine singular accusative, then certainly it is not an example of gross birfurcation that aa5874 does.

Signed not a troll

show_no_mercy

lol

I'm pretty sure aa... reproduced Xc43Nt in his most recent post.