aa5874

Do you see the problem with the question?

Let us REVIEW the ACTUAL written evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

1. ----------------------

2. ---------------------

3.-----------------------

4. ----------------------

5. ----------------------

6. ----------------------

7.-----------------------

8. ----------------------

9. ----------------------

10.---------------------


Let us REVIEW the actual written evidence for Jesus of the NT.

1. He was the Child of a Ghost.

2. He was GOD.

3. He was the Creator.

4. He was on the Pinnacle of the Temple with the DEVIL.

5. He WALKED on the sea.

6. He TRANSFIGURED.

7. He resurrected on the THIRD day.

8. He walked right through the walls of a house with the doors shut tight.

9. The disciples saw the resurrected Jesus and touched his scars.

10. He ascended in a cloud to heaven.


Even a GHOST has FAR more evidence than HJ of Nazareth.

MCalavera

I don't think MJ (in general, that is) is absurd (although I do find Dohertian mythicism and Acharyan mythicism and such to be quite absurd), just that HJ is more likely than MJ with the evidence we currently have access to.

Must be a pretty poor sign, though ... since scholars and experts in the relevant field agree with me generally.

Not really. What I'm still seeing is Occam's razor still favoring the HJ explanation, and this was shown through a select list of questions I asked. Until you have simpler explanations that effectively counter the HJ ones, then HJ is a better explanation because it's simpler and less complicated.

gurugeorge

I think if you look closely into it you'll find that there are very few historians who have either actually looked into the matter or expressed an opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, the people who are the "experts" on the subject, biblical scholars, while by no means of negligible ability, and obvously mostly trying to be objective, are nevertheless mostly Christian and so even with the best will in the world, it's obviously difficult for them to be objective about it.

It's really an artefact of the history of how the study of history developed - there really shouldn't be any such thing as "biblical scholarship" as a distinct field the way it is, there should be either scholars attached to their various believing denominations and openly touting their religious view (albeit informed by their scholarship), or academics who are part of the broader historical field who just happen to specialize in those texts, times and areas. (What's ironic is that the academic study of history partly grew out of the study of the bible!)

What exists at the moment, sociologically speaking, is neither fish nor fowl.

So no, I don't accept there's a meaningful consensus of experts here in the same way as there is in the sciences - or even in other parts of the humanities.

aa5874

Let us see the ACTUAL written evidence for HJ of Nazareth that we currently have access to.


1. ----------------------

2. ---------------------

3.-----------------------

4. ----------------------

5. ----------------------

6. ----------------------

7.-----------------------

8. ----------------------

9. ----------------------

10.---------------------


HJ of Nazareth is by FAR the most absurd based on the evidence we have access to.

Sheshbazzar

A terrific list aa!
although still a bit generous as there isn't even so much as a 1 or a 2 or a..., to be found anywhere

judge

Other "messianic " figures mentioned by Josephus, such as "the Egyptian" or "judas the galillean". No one doubts these guys existed. Jesus is just another one josephus mentions.
Hannibal is another. Probably loads more

aa5874

Josephus did NOT mention HJ of Nazareth at all. There is ZERO character identified as HJ of Nazareth in all Extant Josephus.

Josephus mentioned characters found in the Ghost stories of Jesus Christ like Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the high priest, Tiberius the Emperor, and in forgeries Jesus called Christ was mentioned as one who was RAISED from the dead.

No character was IDENTIFIED as HJ that was born in Nazareth in any writings of Josephus and this is CONFIRMED by the Church writers.

The Church writers claimed that Jesus called Christ in Josephus is the same Ghost Child that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

See Origen's "Commentary on Matthew X to understand that Jesus Christ in Josephus is Jesus Christ in the BIBLE and Galatians 1.19.

Even HJers ADMIT that Jesus Christ in the forgeries of Josephus is Jesus Christ in Galatians 1.19.

The Lord in Galatians 1.19 was somekind of RESURRECTED Ghost. The LORD was NOT a man.

Examine Galatians 1.1

We have NOTHING for HJ of Nazareth.

MCalavera

But they are historians regardless (meaning they are more qualified than you and I to get to the truth behind this stuff) and I don't know of any historian besides Robert Price and Richard Carrier who argue that Jesus never existed or did not likely exist. Do you know any that I should know of?

Then what about the ones that are not Christian? What agenda would they have as historians?

Nobody's arguing that it's on the same level of consensus of experts in the fields of science, but they are experts regardless (some Christians and some atheists).

One would have to be nuts to think that amateurs sitting behind the Internet screens could come up with better findings than the ones agreed to in the expert consensus.

Not that it could never happen, but it would be nuts regardless.

MCalavera

Easy.

Q, Mark, Matthew (I mean the passages that are not dependent on either Mark or Q), Luke (the passages that are not dependent on either Mark or Q), The Epistles of Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The other Epistles in the New Testament, Josephus. That's what I can recall now off the top of my head.

Not sure why you have such a big deal with Jesus once existing as man. Is it a personal reason that you deny that he ever existed?

aa5874

What a big Joke!!! You present NON-EXISTING evidence called "Q" and the Ghost stories about a Child of a Ghost and use them for your HJ of Nazareth.

HJ of Nazareth must also be a Ghost character because you use the very same Ghost stories of a resurrected Ghost that WALKED on the sea, TRANSFIGURED, and ascended in a cloud.

Please tell me does Matthew 1.18-20 depend on Q or Mark???

Matthew 1 Matthew 1.18-20 is NOT dependent on gMark or "Q" and states Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

HJ of Nazareth is also a Ghost story based on your own claims.

Not sure why you CLING to Ghost stories for history?

Nothing has changed for the LAST 1700 years. This is the List of evidence for HJ of Nazareth.


1. ----------------------

2. ---------------------

3.-----------------------

4. ----------------------

5. ----------------------

6. ----------------------

7.-----------------------

8. ----------------------

9. ----------------------

10.---------------------