aa5874

Tell me more. Jesus had DUAL NATIONALITY??? Jesus was FATHERED by a holy Ghost in the NT and you MUST know the Nationality of Holy Ghosts!!!!!

Anyhow, you still have NOT answered your OWN Question.

Was Jesus a JEW? Answer me please. You know the answer.

Chili

Never on his mothers side as Mary was sinless to produce the parthenocarpic fruit of her womb, which is not unlike the parthenocarpic seed of a seedless watermelon. The question really is: Who was this woman called Mary.

mountainman

Hey Earl,

Let's assume it was a delayed telecast to "Paul".
How delayed do you estimate it to have been, to the nearest century?



Sorry about that.


They parsed the lot with their own postulates, and where you (and others) have intuitively seen an MJ they (and others) have intuitively seen an HJ.



This presupposes agreement on the evidence itself by both parties. My experience is that this DIS-agreement is in part caused by differing (in fact incompatible) postulates held by either side.

For example .....




'un-evidenced assumptions' in JM theory


(1) that Jesus was mythical is an assumption or a postulate. It it evidenced? *

(2) that "Paul" was historical is an assumption or a postulate.


* Conversely I might also argue that Jesus was historical is also an assumption or a postulate. For details see - postulates at the foundation of various historical theories of christian origins

Tom Verenna

So what you're saying is that fictional stories cannot be written about historical figures?

Horatio Parker

HJ is an assumption. There is no evidence for HJ. Scripture is evidence for MJ, not HJ.

That's what he's saying.

AFAICT...

aa5874

I am saying that the MYTH Jesus theory is NOT UN-EVIDENCED.

I am saying that the MYTH Jesus theory is FAR SUPERIOR to the HJ theory.

I am saying that HJ is UN-EVIDENCED.

I am saying that HJ is based on IMAGINATION.

The NT is saying that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, God and the Creator who WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, was WITH Satan on the Jewish Temple, Resurrected on the THIRD day and ascended in a cloud.

That is what the NT is saying.

What are your sources of antiquity saying for HJ?

You KNOW what they are saying for HJ of Nazareth??

They are SAYING NOTHING for HJ.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

You can't say anything for your HJ of Nazareth.

Tom Verenna

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hadn't realized that stressing caution was such a nonsensical idea these days.

Interesting and subtle; I like how you inserted 'the Gospel JC', but I'm afraid I am not talking about that particular figure of Jesus. WHy would you shift the goal posts of this discussion? Of course the Gospel Jesus is ahistorical. That figure--the miraculous Jesus--certainly never existed. I am talking about the possibility, however, of a historical figure at the head of such fictions. Fictional stories, after all, can be written about historical people.

That is very black and white and betrays your ignorance about the past, particularly that which deals with the ancient compositions of biographies. Often history and myth were combined into a story. Even Lucian's Lover of Lies (Philopseudes) contains traces of historical information. So do the Gospels. If you want to make the argument that the figure of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is fictional, that is a separate argument all together. That does not negate the possibility that there was a historical figure of Jesus upon which this portrayal in the Gospels was based. There is more shade in this subject than you give credit. Again, I stress caution; do not overstate your position or exaggerate the evidence beyond what it is.

What is 'nonsense' is your lack of intellectual integrity--quite literally, your position lacks sense.

I don't see how you're getting anything about a 'gospel JC' from what I wrote above. If you are addressing something else I wrote, be honest enough to cite it. Don't just shift the goal posts of the discussion or attempt to argue against some phantom claim I've not made.

Actually, removing all the mythological elements and theological elements from the Gospels portrayal of Jesus gives the reader something quite human. Much in the way one can remove all the mythology from Apollonius; there very well could be a man there. Certainly this portrayal, sans mythology, looks to be human. This is a rather poor choice of argument for you.

I would agree. The portrayal of Jesus by the Gospel authors is indeed ahistorical. That doesn't mean these fabrications were not based on an actual historical figure. Unless you too are suggesting that mythological stories cannot be told about historical figures?

That would be difficult to prove. How do you propose to do a study on such a claim?

I would agree. I don't see why you keep thinking I am arguing for something like this. I never made this claim.

Tom Verenna

That was not what you were saying in the post I was citing. You were claiming that Gal. 1 proved ahistoricity. This is not the case. Simply because Paul claims he received his message from a revelatory experience--a position which you even admit might be a lie (because Paul is a liar, as you claimed elsewhere)--does not mean that he did not know about a historical figure of Jesus. But even in the event that Paul did not know of one, it doesn't mean eo ipso that none had existed.

If you are doing so by using Gal. 1 alone, as you had done in the post I was quoting you on, your statement would be wrong.

Which historical Jesus theory are you arguing against? Some are stronger than others. It is not fair to lump them all together in some grand generalization. Are you going after James Crossley, J.D. Crossan, E.P. Sanders? Which methods of theirs are you suggesting are inadequate? In what way? Make your case. Don't just make assertions.

That would be an overstatement of the evidence. As far as you believe, the historical figure of Jesus is a fiction. But that is not something that can be said with certainty. You might make the claim that the figure of Jesus presented in the Gospel accounts is based upon imagination--you might even be able to prove that. But you cannot ignore the fact that fictional stories, from the imagination, can be based upon historical figures. The story of Hidalgo is an excellent example. It's a story about a man and his horse and the race to save the Mustang; but the story, while claimed to be completely historical, had been completely fabricated. You cannot know with any level of certainty that this is not the case with the Gospels. You can try to argue that this is the likely scenario, but you have not made such a convincing case here as to warrant your level of certainty.

And Philostratus makes similar appeals about Apollonius, that he underwent heavenly assumption, that he had the ability to see anything he wanted regardless of where he was, he expelled demons, and so on. Similar appeals were made of Socrates as well; in fact Plato's dialogues include a note which pretty much states outright that his dialogues are fiction. Claims were made that Socrates was born through supernatural means as well. These two individuals probably existed historically. Vespasian is said to have spit on the blind and miraculously they were cured. The God Asclepius is also believed to have possibly been a historical figure by some scholars, and similar stories are told of him. It seems likely to me that these sorts of tropes were commonly applied to figures, whether historical or not. So how one can claim that a figure never existed historically because of these tropes is a little beyond me. It seems to me that the jury on the historicity of the figure of Jesus is still out.

Your question is a bit garbled. Are you asking what my sources are for the sayings of the figure of Jesus? I don't have any because I'm not claiming that any of the sources we have are accurate portrayals of a historical figure.

Ok.

I never claimed that this portrayal of Jesus, as a figure of Nazareth, is historical. This certainly isn't 'my Jesus.' I'm greatly concerned that you and your friend have a reading comprehension problem. I never once made any claims about the 'Jesus of Nazareth' or a 'gospel Jesus'.

Tom Verenna

The Gospels are evidence for a figure of Jesus. You can argue they are poor sources, or that they don't give any information that could be credibly traced to a historical figure of Jesus. Whether you find them unconvincing or not is an answer to a separate question. But I don't believe that such a claim could be made that the scripture is evidence of a figure which never existed historically. That seems to be stretching it. I am not saying Jesus existed historically; I am saying that there is not enough evidence either way to make such a certain positive or negative claim about it.

aa5874

Well, I have predicted correctly that you have NOTHING to say for HJ of Nazareth.

That is what i have been saying all along.

You are just making a lot of NOISE but really have NO sources for HJ.

I am dealing with EVIDENCE that support Myth Jesus.

If you think that HJ lived and was your or somebody else's great.........great grandfather or uncle or an apocalyptic idiot it really doesn't matter to me because ultimately there are NO sources for HJ of Nazareth.

I am dealing with SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES of antiquity.

Just make a CLAIM and SHOW me your source.

I am done with IMAGINATION and SPECULATION.

We ALL know the arguments.

1.It is possible that Jesus existed.

2. It is possible that Jesus did NOT exist.

I support option 2 and have found sources of antiquity to support it.

Do you know of any sources of antiquity that support option 1?

In the NT, Jesus was a Ghost Child, a PHANTOM, a sea-water walker, a transfigurer who resurrected and ascended.

And a PAULINE writer claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man but of a resurrected Jesus.

If you have NO sources for HJ of Nazareth then I don't want to hear your IMAGINATIVE SPECTACULAR invention about who might have existed.