aa5874

Again, what a load of BS you post.

In a Court, EVIDENCE is Primary. The Preponderance of evidence is fundamental, NOT the preponderance of expert opinion.

Matthew 1.18 has been recovered. It says Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost. The WRITTEN statement is evidence that Jesus was a Mythological character.

Luke1. 26-35 has been found in the earliest Codices--it also claims Jesus was the Product of an Overshadowing Ghost. gLuke's Jesus was Mythological.

Mark 6.48-49 has been found in Codices--it is claimed Jesus Walked on the sea. The evidence will NOT magically disappear. gMark's Jesus was Mythological.

Mark 9.2 is in the Codex Sinaiticus--it says Jesus transfigured. The written statements are evidence that support Mythological Jesus.

John 1.1 is evidence, written evidence. It says Jesus was God the Creator that was in the beginning with God and that Jesus made everything. .gJohn's Jesus was Mythological

The evidence cannot be altered. The written statements in the Codices are cast in stone. Jesus was a Mythological character and the Gospels are 2nd century or later Myth FABLES.

Duvduv

Of course evidence is primary in a court. But we are not in court, and what you are discussing is NOT EVIDENCE but INTERPRETATION of what you see in documents whose veracity cannot be empirically proven according to your hypotheses.

aa5874

Where do you get your stories from?? The Palm of your hand!!

You present a PACK of erroneous and mis-leading information. In the Myth Fables called Gospels the FAME of Jesus spread ALL over Judea, and in Syria.

Mark 1:28 KJV Why can't you simply repeat what is written in the Fables called Gospels??

Matthew 4:24 KJV
Now, look at gLuke. The Myth Fables called Gospels did say Jesus was well known.

Luke 5:15 KJV

TedM

aa, the fact is that you have a requirement that is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to expect 'hard evidence' in the form of 1st century manuscripts because manuscripts from that period were highly unlikely to survive. Therefore, if you were on a truth-seeking mission, you would look to the next best thing: What other evidence points to or away from a 1st century Christianity? The reason experts think your viewpoint is moronic is because they have looked at that other evidence. Yet, you refuse to do so. SO your view is not only moronic, it is foolish and close-minded.

Like a juror who refuses to examine all of the evidence, you have disqualified yourself from having any credible opinion regarding the existence of 1st century Christianity.

Regarding the 'mythological Jesus', your views are once again close-minded. Those same writings also refer to Jesus as a man. Therefore one has to consider the possibility that Jesus had been a man but that the writers were simply mistaken with regard to his divinity. You refuse to do so. This again disqualifies you from having a credible opinion regarding the humanness of Jesus.

In conclusion, you are disqualified from being taken seriously. Experts are much more qualified than you.

aa5874

Again and again you put forward your blatant mis-leading erroneous claim. You yourself have argued against EXPERTS that support the Mythological Jesus.

You are NOT credible. You pretend that all EXPERTS agree about the Nature of Jesus.

Do Carrier and Ehrman agree about the Nature of Jesus?? No

Do Doherty and Ehrman agree about the Nature of Jesus?? No

Do Robert Price and Ehrman agree about the Nature of Jesus?? No

Do Acharya S and Ehrman agree about the Natur of Jesus??? No

Please, you don't make much sense. You very well know that EXPERTS do NOT all agree about the nature of Jesus.

What absurdity!! I am arguing that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL so I MUST show that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost as found in Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

I MUST show that Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured in Mark 6.48-49 and 9.2.

I MUST show that Jesus was God the Creator and existed Before all things in John 1.1

I MUST show that Jesus Resurrected, ATE Food before he Ascended in Luke 24.

I MUST present the written statements to support my argument.

You have NO evidence and is on a smear campaign. That is all.

The HJ argument is horribly weak and is based on known and admitted sources of fiction.

You may have disqualified yourself and you don't even know it. Please, don't argue with me if you are NOT an expert.

Huon

Tell that to the leaders of the Christian organisations, LOL!

Clivedurdle

Umm, why is this not a reference to Paul's 500?

And if he appeared to James and all the Apostles after his resurrection, where does it say he appeared before, and why does not this early sighting make James the Lord's brother?