aa5874

Please deal with the OP. We are NOT attempting to settle the question of how much of the New Testament are historically true.

This is the question "Is HJ not the more likely overall explanation?

HJ does not EXPLAIN the Jesus stories found in the NT.

MJ is the MORE LIKELY overall explanation.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

J-D

In some parts of the New Testament the identity of Jesus with God is affirmed while in other parts it is denied; some of the Gospels refer to Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit and others don't.

MCalavera

I'm loving J-D's posts.

A shame a few of his opponents can be a bit whacko at times.

jules?

http://youtu.be/sgcjlPJiV2w

and for a little light relief I thought I would do this for you. [can anyone tell me how to embed?

Toto

use the youtube tag with the id:

[ YOUTUBE ]sgcjlPJiV2w[ /YOUTUBE ]

aa5874

J-D does NOT provide any historical evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

Examine what J-D claimed and you will SEE his ERROR.

Some of the Gospels do refer to Jesus being CONCEIVED of the Holy Spirit and others don't.

Well, it is NOT expected that since some of the Gospels claimed Jesus was CONCEIVED of the Holy Ghost that others would CLAIM he was CONCEIVED by an ordinary man.

It is COMPLETELY reasonable to DEDUCE or CONCLUDE that Jesus of the NT was a Ghost Child.

Now, the same thing applies to PILATE of the NT.

1.In some of the Gospels he is called Pontius Pilate and in others he is NOT.

2.In some of the Gospels he is called Governor and in others he is NOT.

It is PERFECTLY reasonable to DEDUCE or CONCLUDE that NT PILATE was Pontius Pilate the Governor.

Please, note that any time I mention Pilate of the NT that I refer to Pontius Pilate the Governor.

And any time I mention Jesus of the NT that I refer to the CHILD FATHERED by a Ghost called Jesus Christ.

MCalavera

The NT is a collection of books. It's not really one book of its own.

You do realize that, right?

J-D

It is not reasonable to deduce or to expect that the Gospels are all telling the same story. They contradict each other.

mountainman

Hey Jake,

I have also tried to follow up that question. I didn't find any evidence (other than palaeographically dated papyri) before Constantine. There may be something relevant mentioned in this thread .... The source of the "Legend" between the Greek name "Jesus" and nomina sacra code "ΙΣ" .

It implies that a normal Greek literate reader of the Bible in a Greek bookstore in the Roman Empire would have no idea of the name of Jesus or Joshua or whether he was the "Chrestos" or the "Christos" without going up the road to the local church and asking someone what the codes meant. Here I am assuming that the new testament was PRESERVED by a church or churches.


Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

Hey Archibald and Jake,

The "Chrestos/Christos" issue is dramatically highlighted in a great deal of the EVIDENCE - in this case tangentiated from the Tacitus manuscript and the ultra-violet analysis. Dont you recall arnaldo that we were discussing the integrity of the Tacitus reference to the question of the HJ (or otherwise)? It is the EVIDENCE that I continually bring forward for examination and discussion. There is more (and more) to the evidence than you seem to realise. Hence the references here and there to "homework".

It is quite obvious that the terms "Chrestians" and "Christians" have been conflated at some point in antiquity. Some glaring references of this conflation derive from the 4th century personalities.

I think Jake appreciates the issue runs deep, but I think archibald has only just stumbled upon the issue.


This is what some commentators suspect.

The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity


Mathematicians and other theorists describe things called overall theory spaces by identifying limits and bounds for all possible theories since not everything is possible (given the postulates and initial conditions). It would be interesting to sketch out the theory space for Christian origins. There are certainly a great deal of UNKNOWNS. It seems we are dealing with some sort of probability density function derived from the measure of HISTORICITY being ascribed to the evidence itself as measured against a chronological scale (which is itself derived from the historicity of the chronological related evidence).

The entire chronology of the HJ and his church is fraught with peril on all sides. As the tides of evidence rise from multidisciplinary research the authorship of the canonical new testament is being pushed later and later into the second century.

Taking into account these trends and emergent theories, the HJ is gradually becoming less and less likely in a very strict mathematical / probabilistic sense. There are limits and bounds on the theory space being explored by all parties with each their respective hypotheses, axioms and postulates. What are the possible upper and lower limits of chronology for christian origins?

Best wishes


Pete