Amaleq13

I can't tell whether you are confused enough to think your initial questions follow from my statement or if you are simply ignoring it so as to continue to repeat your mantra.

Your desire to continue singing your one-note song appears to be causing you to lose focus. We've narrowed down to one single thing about Jesus that you have so far been unable to address adequately (ie his significant death).

Your questions about when Jesus was born and to what parents are irrelevant to that focus. They also suggest you are trying to work your way back to repeating your mantra instead of making an effort to engage in a genuine discussion. I hope that perception is mistaken.

Your third question is relevant but I'm having a hard time not attributing that to blind luck.

Given the subsequent significance attributed to his death by a few, one would think he did something to impress those sufficiently to warrant that consideration. A great deal of the evidence suggests this involved teaching and appearing capable of magical acts. Please do not ignore the word I've placed in italics. You have, in past posts, seemed incapable of making the distinction between being capable of magic and being believed capable of magic.

J-D

It's not coherent.

Gamera

[QUOTE=aa5874;4364314]Argument by definition. The account is fictitious, so it's not history.

The gospels and epistles weren't part of any bible until later. What a strange standard. So if there is no account of Pericles' birth except in the text of an Athenian partisan, does that mean Pericle's is fictitious.


No historian of the 1st century has written anything about Socrates. So is he fictitious?

Let's not be coy. The mss that make up the gospels and epistles are some of the oldest, most diverse and best copied texts we have from antiquity. There is no categorical difference between Luke and any other historian from the time.

I know you are. And I asked for your standard. And using what appears to be your standard. Socrates, Pericles and Augustus are mythical beings. And that leads me to question your standard.

"Some historian"? What are you talking about. The people who wrote "history" during antiquity weren't historians. They were guys like Thucydides, an Athenian general who had an axe to grind. Tacitus, a Roman official who wanted to glorify his family and keep his goverment job. The "historical" works of antiquity are filled with miraculous births and interventions by gods. Again, your argument reduces to argument by definition: These guys are historians and these guys aren't. Incredibly poor and unconvincing reasoning.

Are you really so naive as to think that there were "historians" in antiquity who were interested in "scholarship" and the truth?

mountainman

It is recorded to have apparently passed Constantine
the Great's personal inspection. Our modern scholarly
opinion of Constantine is that he should be regarded
as "one of the eminent christian theologians of his era".

How more coherent can you get?

“VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS,
to Eusebius.

“It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Savior,
that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church
in the city which is called by my name.

It seems, therefore, highly requisite,
since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects,
that the number of churches should also he increased.
Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf.

I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence
to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures,
the provision and use of which you know
to be most needful for the instruction of the Church,
to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner,
and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers
thoroughly practiced in their art.

The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions by
letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary
for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you
to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.

You have authority also, in virtue of this letter,
to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance,
by which arrangement the copies when fairly written
will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection;
and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service,
who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality.
God preserve you, beloved brother!”.


L36: (333AD) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius
on the preparation of the copies of the Scriptures.
Synopsis: Orders fifty copies with directions as to style.

(Preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine 4:36,
Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History 1:15, and
Socrates’ Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9)

aa5874

I have read the posts and they do not appear irrational to me. And by the way, who determines irrationality around here?

mountainman

Logically: not the early "tribe of pythagoreans".

J-D

So now you, after all the things you've said about him, want to use the judgement of Constantine as your standard? I don't think so. I'm certainly not going to.

Christian theology isn't coherent, either.

aa5874

So, how do you determine who is an historical figure of antiquity?

If we assume you are correct that there weren't any 'historians' in antiquity who were interested in "scholarship" and truth, then it is reasonable to accept that the NT may be fictitious and Jesus was fabricated. Now, I hope you are not naive enough to disagree.

J-D

At your request, I demonstrated in this post your commission of the fallacy of composition. You did not point to any fault in the demonstration.

J-D

'It may be the case that Jesus was fabricated' is not the same statement as 'It is the case that Jesus was fabricated'.