aa5874

If you have a limited understanding then why did you state that you were PRETTY SURE there was a man named Jesus when you were NOT.

Are you now going to retract everything you said about the Jesus character??

It does NOT matter anymore--It is confirmed that the HJ argument cannot be defended with credible evidence.

The HJ argument is Analogous to those of Creationists.

Creationists are pretty sure ADAM was a real man and You are Pretty sure Jesus was a man even though both of them had NO human father in the Bible.

another1

You're right I think. It might not matter at all. I do believe that Jesus lived which is my opinion based on limited knowlege, which i think is not becoming any less limited from this thread.

I should google some random "facts" to make my point but I seriously think giving Jeus some more attention is the last thing we should be doing.

Is Atheism a faith? I think I see more passion coming from them on this board than most Christains I've met. If I don't believe in something, I just try cast it aside and let others believe what they have the right to think.

Thanks for the response.

aa5874

Why do you want to maintain your beliefs with ADMITTED limited knowledge of the facts??? That is the very worse position that some one can take.

And then to expand your own error you assert based on your own admitted limited knowledge that the thread is limited. How illogical can you be??

Has it not crossed your mind that once you have admitted limited knowledge that your statement about the thread is irrelevant???

Please, this is a serious matter.

Your statement is most contradictory. You maintain your belief in Jesus as a man but think others should NOT give Jesus any attention.

I give the Jesus story attention because of people like you. You obviously want people to believe Jesus was a man without a shred of credible evidence.

I want people to know that you have NO credible evidence for your beliefs about YOUR Jesus.

This thread has NOTHING at all to do with Atheism.

This thread is about a Theory that the Jesus movement was Initiated in the 2nd century based on Stories of a character called Jesus Christ the Son of God and NOT on an actual human being.

This is a fact--- There is NO Text DATED by Paleography or Scientific means to the 1st century and before c 70 CE that mentions a character called Jesus Christ who was regarded as a UNIVERSAL Savior through Sacrifice by people of the Roman Empire.

another1

Today, 10:39 AM
<----aa5874

----> This thread seems to be flooded with Atheists, so it I think it does have something to do with Atheistm.

As for the rest, I state questions and make observations. You can be as defensive as you like about it.

Please remember that you're spitting in the wind when you try to pick my statements apart, because I do not state anything to be a fact.

In my opinion we all have limited knowledge friend. Twist it around to fit your illision any way you like.

aa5874

Well, if it is your view that we all have limited knowledge then what is your problem if I do not agree with your opinion based on your admitted limited knowledge??

You admit you have limited knowledge about YOUR Jesus but NO ONE has knowledge of YOUR Jesus. Even the very Bible, the source of the character called Jesus, has NO evidence of a human Jesus.

The Bible itself claims Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost in gMatthew and gLuke, in gJohn he was the Creator in gMark he walked on water and transfigured.

Where did you get Your Jesus story from??? Where is your limited knowledge from about Jesus??

It is NOT in the Bible. It is NOT in Non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

I am afraid that you will have to explain whether you have little or NO knowledge of Your Jesus.

I have knowledge of the Existing Codices and that they state Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

I have NO knowledge at all of YOUR Jesus that you believe was human.

MrMacSon

These threads discuss the lack of evidence for a man named Jesus, and lack of evidence for virtually all biblical claims, including lack of evidence for the bible as an 'accurate record' of anything in it.

Nobody can produce any supporting documentation, other than belief.


It is not an illusion, it is a reasoned position.

The issue with people believing what they like it that many trying to inculcate and indoctrinate others, especially children, as is the want with evangelism, etc. Your charge of an illusion for something you admit is based on limited knowledge is sheer hypocrisy.

mountainman

No wonder King Agbar sent Jesus a letter.

What sort of Gods were Jesus's relatives?

Did they have a defence budget?

mountainman

The extant earliest Greek NT codices also do not mention a character called Jesus Christ. These greek texts are encrypted. A code system has been used. The full name of Jesus and the name of Christ do not appear until much later. The people of the empire believed in a CODE called "J_S C_T".

This could be "Joshua Chrest".

Razncain

Most scholars still think that he existed during that time and place, but not all, and I’ve personally found it difficult to have a strong opinion of it, one way or the other. If Erhman's latest DJE book is any indication of what is supposedly the best evidence for him, I came out disappointed. I guess I was expecting much more from a student of Metzer.

Concerning Jesus’ lineage being accurate, not so at all, since ancient times the problems of matching up Jesus’ lineage have been known. Modern scholars know it isn’t Jesus lineage at all, but creative theologians at work. To see this for yourself, do a google and find a parallel of Matthew (start of first chapter) and Luke (3rd chapter) on Jesus’ genealogy. The OT doesn’t help with their partial lineage matching up either, and there are plenty of omissions.

Fundamentalist apologists make up some really good humdingers to still try to make it all fit, with them coming up with a variety of creative concoctions, none of which are the least bit convincing except to the faithful who aren’t about to let this get in their way, nothing else seems to.

aa5874

An historical Jesus cannot be defended. We will NOW witness the END for the Quest for an historical Jesus.

Ehrman was supposedly the best and he turned out to be the worst of the worst.

HJ is finished.

There will be NO SECOND Coming for the "Son of Man/Son of God" physically, Spiritually or Historically.

Jesus was EXPECTED to Come Back from heaven--He did NOT.

Jesus was EXPECTED from Ehrman--He did NOT.

ALL FAILED Prophecies.

No-one will ever see or has ever seen Jesus in their generation.