aa5874

Please, NOT again. Whatever you did NOT understand or I didn't understand is irrelevant at this stage.

You have ALREADY did EXACTLY what I wanted you to do.

1. You have ADMITTED that the Canonical Gospel contain statements about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

2. You have NOT presented any SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth.

3. You have UTTERLY failed to present a statement about Jesus in the Canon that is historically accurate.

J-D

You ask for a statement of what it is that we think you don't understand, and as soon as you get a response to your request you dismiss it as irrelevant. Why did you ask for it if you thought it was irrelevant?

aa5874

You have been CAUGHT in a spin by your OWN understanding.

You UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY WELL that there are statements in the Canonical Gospels about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

This is an excerpt from your OWN post.

Now, I have SHOWN you some of those statements that CANNOT be historically accurate in Mark. 6.48-49 and 9.2 where it is claimed Jesus was WITNESSED by the disciples as he WALKED on the sea and when he TRANSFIGURED.

I have shown you that gMark's Jesus was a PHANTON as described.

It is your OWN understanding that SOME of the statements about Jesus in the Canon might be or might not be historically accurate.

Well, just SHOW me the historically accurate statements about Jesus in gMark based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING.

You already have 80+ posts WITHOUT a source for HJ of Nazareth or an historically accurate statement about Jesus in gMark and I am DELIGHTED.

One more post from you won't hurt.

gMark has effectively destroyed the HJ argument.

J-D

Why are you asking me to show you these things? Why do you think I should show you the things you are asking for? What do your questions have to do with me?

aa5874

Well AFTER 80+ posts J-D is still asking questions.

But, there is at least ONE thing that he ADMITS that he FULLY UNDERSTANDS and it is that there are statements about Jesus in the Canonical Gospel that CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

Now, Perhaps some other person can tell us what in gMark about Jesus is historically accurate.

1. Is it the feeding of the 5000 men?

2. Is it the feeding of the 4000 men?

3. Is it the Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird and the Voice from heaven?

4. Is it the Temptation with Satan when Jesus was with the angels?

5. Is it the Demons and the 2000 pigs?

6. Is it the INSTANT healing of the DEAF, DUMB, BLIND and Epileptic?

7. Is it the Cursing of the Fig tree?

8. Is it the raising of the dead?

9. Is it the calming of the sea-storm?

10. Is it the resurrection of Jesus?

J-D

And after 80+ posts you are also still asking questions, not that there's anything wrong with that.

But after 80+ posts you continue to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of your position by not answering any questions.

I never made the assertion that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus ARE literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I made the assertion that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

You are unable to take account of the difference between 'are' and 'might be', which makes intelligent discussion with you impossible.

aa5874

Everybody KNOWS that any statement about anyone MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be historically accurate.


That is NOTHING new. That does NOT help HJers.

I want to KNOW what statements about Jesus in the Canon are historically accurate.

That is WHAT I want to KNOW--The supposed historically accurate statements about Jesus.

You have ALREADY ADMITTED that Some statements about Jesus CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

That is well-known.

The Jesus in gMark that was WITNESSED by the disciples as he WALKED on the sea and Transfigured COULD NOT POSSIBLY be an historical Jesus.

That Jesus in gMark 6.48-49 and 9.2 was a Monstrous LIE or a Monstrous fiction character.

Not again.

Please, based on your OWN UNDERSTANDING, I repeat, your OWN understanding of "ARE" and "MIGHT BE" can you IDENTIFY any statements about Jesus in gMark that are historically accurate?

Can you do that?

I have already IDENTIFIED statements about Jesus that show he was a PHANTOM in gMark, that he fed NINE thousand men with few loaves and fish and still managed to collect TWELVE baskets of left-overs.

J-D

Not at all. I have said several times that some of the statements in the canonical gospels CANNOT POSSIBLY BE literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, while others MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. If you are unable to take account of the difference between 'cannot possibly be' and 'might or might not be', intelligent discussion with you becomes impossible.

Sheshbazzar

Based on your own understanding aa, Please SHOW us why this statement and event cannot be a historically accurate account.

aa5874

In "Against Herseies" 3.1 the author claimed OR IMPLIED that gMark is NOT an eyewitness report from gMark's author but that it was based on information or the preaching of Peter.

Now Examine "Against Heresies" 3.1
This piece of information is Extremely CRITICAL.

According to the Church and its writers gMark is really compiled from what Peter conveyed to the author.

The author of gMark was supposedly an Interpreter of Peter.

Now, the Church and its writers have made Peter into a Monstrous Liar.

Peter could NOT have seen Jesus as he WALKED on the sea.

Human Beings do NOT have the Specific Gravity to allow them to be sea-water walkers.

And, in gMark 9.2, PETER was supposedly PRESENT at the Transfiguration.

Peter COULD NOT have seen Jesus Transfigure with the resurrected Prophets Elijah and Moses as described in Mark 9.

Human Beings cannot Transfigure or resurrect.

The Credibility of the very Church and its writers are questionable.

It is CLEAR that gMark's water-walking and transfiguration episodes are FICTION.

It is CLEAR that the Church and its writers have presented stories where PERSONS, Elijah and Moses, who did NOT exist in the 1st century and were supposedly already dead were with the Transfigured Jesus.

There is NO character in gMark that can be PRESUMED to have lived since we know that there are characters that were INVENTED.

Elijah and Moses were INVENTED for the transfiguration.

Mark 9.2-4 Without external corroboration gMark cannot be trusted for historical purposes. People were INVENTED when the obsolete PHANTOM Transfigured.

Moses and Elijah were INVENTED in gMark.