Originally Posted by Larsguy47

>I know he didn't turn water into wine.

No you don't. Remember, "miracles" by their nature are exception to natural law. As long as Jesus claimed this was a "miracle" if off the the table for being challenged.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historicity of Jesus the Christ can only be resolved positively if there is corroboration of the NT's stories about Jesus the Christ, and in addition, the stories themselves must have some credibilty or truth to them.

The character 'Jesus the Christ' in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Pauline Epistles has not ever been proven to be the same character, this character has only been assumed to be so.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Miracles are a fundamental core of the Jesus stories. These so-called miracles are reported in the bible as real events, i.e. real people who were blind, deaf, dumb and dead were healed, resurrected and witnessed by real people.

Now, it was the inclusion of miracles in the Jesus stories that have destroyed the credibilty of the NT. It appears that 2000 years ago, even up to now, many people believe that miraculous events really occured, and inadvertently, the authors of the NT made fatal errors.

So today we know, the prophecies about Jesus are fiction, the Angel Gabriel story is fiction and the virgin birth is fiction. These were declared to be true repeatedly in the NT , but are obviously false, and one ponders about what else is false.

Now, if Jesus was a real person, then some real person had sexual contact with the supposed Mary, therefore Joseph's angelic visit is fiction, Mary's story about impregnation by the Holy Ghost is also fiction.

As you read the NT, the pattern becomes obvious, if Jesus was a real person, then all miraculous events with respect to him are fiction and statements made by others and related events also become fiction as it relates to the miracle.

If all the characters in the NT make fictitious statements and are placed at fictitious events to make Jesus real, then I conclude that the the historicity of Jesus the Christ is fiction.

If someone were to tell you today, that after being dead for 4 days, that they were resurrected, wouldn't you challenge that claim? And what would you do if that same person told you that thousands witnessed his resurrection, including his family?

The life of Jesus the Christ, from birth to death, is an exception to natural law and what is even more disturbing is that the authors of the NT claimed that real persons witnessed this exception.

Originally Posted by aa5874

So it is with my decision on the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ, the NT, as written or presented, is clearly fictional, on the other hand, there is no credible extra-biblical corroboration of Jesus the Christ in the first century. I must uphold the non-HJ position until further evidence is unearthed.

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Sorry, J-D, but applying your favorite misinterpolation of what the gospels say doesn't count here as a dismissal proof. Here's your corrections to the above, which you then may rechallenge:


>Yes I know he didn't see all the kingdom of the world at once from the top of a high mountain.

Satan showed him a "vision" of these kingdoms. Not the actual kingdoms.

>I know he didn't turn water into wine.

No you don't. Remember, "miracles" by their nature are exception to natural law. As long as Jesus claimed this was a "miracle" if off the the table for being challenged.

>I know he didn't simultaneously ride on two different animals.

Again, you misread. The reference to his sitting on "them" is a reference to the garments placed on the colt, not to both the animals:

Matt 21:7 "6 So the disciples got on their way and did just as Jesus ordered them. 7 And they brought the ass and its colt, and they put upon these their outer garments, and he seated himself upon them [the garments]." Misreading a text doesn't count as a contradiction, sorry.

>I know he wasn't born at two different times (once when Herod was king and once when Quirinius was govenor).

First of all, the question of when Herod's rule actually was is a matter of ongoing debate for some. The gospels date Herod's rule at a different time than the Josephus does, who apparently revised the chronology of Herod to steal some years from his reign to add to the reign of Flavius as far as we can surmise. At any rate, the adjusted "eclipse" dating for his reign dates his death on Shebat 2, 1 AD. The context of that year allows for a gap in the "governorships" during which time Quirinis is suspected of being a acting governor for the summer at the time when a census was done, not a taxation, but simply a registration in response to the jubilee year of caesar. So those issues are potentially resolved. The eclipse of 4 BCE currently dating Herod's rule is not applicable for Josephus' reference whatsoever. Josephus though gives a double-rulership for Herod, one of 34 years from year 37 BCE and one of 37 years from year 40 BCE, which by experience with Josephus is a giveaway that Herod's 37-year rule originally began in 37CE. Based upon that reference alone his death would occur on Shebat 2, 1 AD. When we check that against an eclipse occurring the month before, it checks out, so, Shebat 2, 1 AD at this point is the best reference in the context of apparent revisionism/shortening of the rule of Herod.

And that's it. You have to come up with something else as your basis for dismissing the reliability of the gospel account. Your current challenges would be considered "inconclusive" or "inappropriate" for a historical challenge.

Larsguy47

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think fiction resolves everything.

Originally Posted by J-D

I do not dispute that many of the statements in the New Testament accounts of Jesus cannot be historically true.

There is no valid argument from this premise to the conclusion that none of the statements in the New Testament accounts of Jesus are historically true.

It is difficult to discuss this with you when you appear reluctant to confront squarely the fact that these two statements are not logically equivalent.

Originally Posted by aa5874

These are my observations:
5. All the miracles written in the NT as being done by Jesus the Christ are fiction, health problems are not caused by devils.

Originally Posted by aa5874

These are my observations:
1.The prophecies with respect to Jesus the Christ are not true. I cannot find any book or chapter in the OT that deals with any character as described in the NT.
2. The reported conception of Jesus the Christ is fiction, no real person is the son of a ghost.
3. The genealogies of Jesus the Christ are contradictory, I cannot determine the father of Jesus, mother, grandfather or anyone related to him.
4. Jesus the child lived in Egypt and in another he lived in Nazareth, real person cannot live in two places at the same time.
5. All the miracles written in the NT as being done by Jesus the Christ are fiction, health problems are not caused by devils.
6. The burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ are fiction as reported in the NT, firstly no body was in the tomb at visitation and real persons after death do not resurrect.
7. The character called Paul in the NT cannot recall whether Jesus the Christ was a real person or not.

I have covered, concisely, the birth, life, and death of Jesus the Christ and I cannot find any credible information about him. Non-historicity is my only option until credibilty can be confirmed.

Again, do you know anything, as reported in the NT, that is true about the life of Jesus the Christ?

Originally Posted by spamandham

I haven't seen a detailed account either, but I see enough holes in the traditional account to determine that as far as I'm concerned, it is unsupported by anything of substance and fails to account for all the facts without resorting to implausible speculation.

Originally Posted by spamandham

As for the Mark-as-fiction approach, there's nothing published in peer reviewed journals as far as I know. The mainstream still considers this quackery, and it may well be. Perhaps I'm just foolish to think I can take the summarized results of the extensive effort the historians and archaeologists have produced, and draw my own conclusions from it. :huh:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have seen no convincing argument that H2 is the proper position when H is the statement: 'It is possible to extract reliable historical information about a historical Jesus from the Gospel accounts.'

Originally Posted by J-D

...I said I hadn't seen an account sufficiently detailed to be evaluated. 'Mark-as-fiction' is just three words. That's not enough. I mean, literally, that I don't know what you're talking about.