aa5874

I just can't find any credible source of antiquity about an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

In the NT, it was the Child of a Ghost that lived there and he did absolutely nothing that is documented.

In gMatthew, the unknown author claimed the same Child of a Ghost went to live in Nazareth because of some Scripture but not even that I can find.

I am now convinced that HJ of Nazareth is the product of someone's IMAGINATION.

I have been duped and have been sent in a WILD GOOSE chase looking for HJ of Nazareth when it was known for HUNDREDS of years by Scholars that HJ is based on IMAGINATION.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity CLEARLY suggest that the Jesus stories are MERE Myth fables that people in antiquity believed.

The supposed contemporary of Jesus, "Paul", wrote that the IMAGINED resurrection of Jesus was the FOUNDATION of Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

Co 15:14 - I have been LED Astray. Scholars know that the quest for the historical Jesus already has a history of failure and the historical Jesus is based on Scholars OWN IMAGINATION.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus I am done looking for HJ.

HJ is based on the IMAGINATION of Scholars.

I thought Scholars had credible evidence of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

But, they have NOTHING but their personal IMAGINATION.

I don't have time to waste with peoples IMAGINATION.

I need CREDIBLE sources from antiquity.

Toto

I think it is clearly time for you to move on to another topic.

stephan huller

I think Nietzsche wrote somewhere that the best way to help sabotage a movement is to have someone develop bad arguments for the cause.

avi

Toto, Stephan, your replies do not address the issue raised by aa5874.

What is needed is a simple, very simple, list of TWO or more publications, accessible on the internet, which repudiate this theme.

Two or more, evidence based publications, showing the unequivocal presence of an historical figure named Jesus, who lived in Galilee, somewhere.

If you two are going to trot out Irenaeus, I for one, will deny that as suitable evidence.

Ditto for Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, et al...I am looking for a FIRST century rejoinder that disproves aa5874, because, in my opinion, he is right on target.

Show me the money. The whole affair is a giant hoax. In my opinion, some clever folks saw a method to separate, legally, some elderly, wealthy persons, from their geld by selling tickets to paradise.

Whatever Nietzsche, or LaoZi, or Fourier wrote, may well be relevant to seeking paradise, but not to the origins of Christianity, and certainly not relevant to the history of the myth of an historical figure named Jesus.

avi

Toto

If you want clear evidence of a historical Jesus, you won't find it.

That's why it's time for aa to move on and find a topic where there is evidence.

mountainman

Amen.


The evidence may indicate that Jesus was imaginary. Perhaps an equivalent word would be transcendental.

aa5874

Why don't you address the OP. There is something radically strange going on here with you. Something is wrong with what you write. I can't understand why you are doing this.

Don't you read before you post?

ONE of the GREATEST CONTRIBUTORS who ENDED the quest for the Historical Jesus claimed "each scholar's version of Jesus often seemed to reflect the personal ideals of the scholar".

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

HJ of Nazareth is NOT a quest to corroborate Jesus of the NT that was born in Bethlehem and "fathered" by the Holy Ghost, it is a quest that is based on REJECTION of the biography of NT Jesus.

HJ of Nazareth is in effect what Scholars IMAGINE.

In the NT:

1. Jesus was BORN in Bethlehem as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

2. When Jesus was baptized the Holy Ghost ENTERED into his body.

Scholars REJECT the NT's biography but have NO source of antiquity for HJ and have RELIED SOLELY on what they have IMAGINED.

Please deal with the OP. The OP is a SERIOUS and RELEVANT issue.

Why must an HJ be from Nazareth?

PyramidHead

Toto

What do you want me to deal with?

For approximately a millennium and a half, Christians believed in Jesus who was a god who came to earth. But the Catholic Church preserved all writings about this Jesus in a language that no one except the priests could read.

Then there was a revolution in technology and in thought. People who did not believe in supernatural events or in gods began to read the sacred texts, and imagined that there was a real person behind the story, and tried to reconstruct what this person might have been like.

Christians then reacted to this by adopting the historical Jesus, but there are problems with this both theologically and historically.

If you are unwilling to accept the basic idea that there might have been a historical person behind the Christian myth, you are wasting your time here, and wasting every one else's.

aa5874

What nonsense. Why are you constantly attempting to derail my thread? What really is your problem? This is now a real serious issue.

You are no longer being objective.

You KNOW that some Scholars have REJECTED the theory that there was an historical Jesus.

What is wrong with you?

Is DOHERTY wasting people's time?

These are the words of Doherty on the back cover of "Jesus Neither God NOR Man"

Now, if you are UNWILLING to accept that there might have been NO historical person behind the Jesus stories then I can say that you are wasting my time.

There are at LEAST TWO sides to any argument.

Why can't I argue like DOHERTY that Jesus was NEITHER GOD NOR MAN?

Why can't I argue that Jesus was a MYTH fable?

Well, unless you come to GRIPS with the fact that NOT all people will accept what you want them to accept then you are really wasting time.

I DON'T ACCEPT your opinion AT ALL.

You don't make much sense to me.

Now, it is MY THEORY that the historical Jesus is the IMAGINATION of Scholars BASED on the FACT that HJ of Nazareth has ZERO credible sources of antiquity.

Do you UNDERSTAND that?

This means that HJ of Nazareth MUST be constructed from a BLANK SHEET of paper.

Many Christians RECONSTRUCT their Jesus from sources of antiquity that they CLAIM are RELIABLE and even INERRANT.

But Scholars want to CONSTRUCT an HJ from sources of antiquity that they CLAIM are NOT RELIABLE and FULL of ERRORS.

How did Scholars come to the conclusion that an HJ was born in Nazareth?

Not even the Bible, Ignatius, Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria support such a claim.

Right Now, I am ONLY willing to ACCEPT that Jesus was a MYTH fable like the Myth fables that other Christians BELIEVED based on the PRESENT EXTANT evidence.

I am arguing that Jesus was NOT a Man in the NT.

I am arguing that HJ is the IMAGINATION of Scholars.