aa5874

Whether the story in Wars of the Jews is true or NOT has NO bearing on the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost who walked on the sea and transfigured but there is NO such description of the Egyptian in Josephus.

There is simply NO source for HJ of Nazareth.

That is all.

There is NO figure of history that can substitute for Jesus.

If Jesus was a figure of history then we would expect some myth and some history.

Virtually everything about Jesus in the NT has NO historical value since they cannot possibly be history.

You are just making the same debunked assertions.

What people think of some UNRELATED story of an Egyptian in Josephus cannot help HJers.

Please, just find a credible source for HJ of Nazareth.

Steve Weiss

Jesus is just one of many mythical characters in a work of fiction. It's not like he is an exception to the rest of a work that is factual. Hardly. There was no Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc. either. They are all fictional characters in a work of fiction. Behind it all is a mythical deity pulling all the levers like the Wizrd of Oz, and any sane person merely has to look behind the curtain and see that the whole yarn is as phony as can be. Would one search around for evidence to support the Wizard of Oz? What for?

archibald

Or you could have picked any one of a number of cult leaders/prophets/messianic claimants from around that time.

Of course, this only illustrates that there is not a shortage of evidence for Jesus in relation to what evidence we should expect to find. It doesn't say anything about the accuracy or otherwize of that evidence, and I think it's important to make that distinction.

I have a feeling that it would be reasonable not to take a strong view that any of these particular individuals existed.

judge

Yes, jesus likely existed, but so what?
I get the feeling that sometimes mythicists are so intimidated by the nonsensical claims of christianity that they prefer to claim he didnt exist as some kind of psychological defence mechansim. And hey , if that works for them then good luck to them
But, thats just my view.

archibald

My guess would be that this could be true in some cases, but I wouldn't say that mythicism, as an hypothesis, is strongly connected to it. Equally, there are probably Christians who believe he existed for similarly psychological reasons.

tanya

:notworthy:

><

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....51#post6981551

"likely existed"? Have you read Mark 1:1?

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

I find nothing intimidating about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any of the other religions. They are all nonsense.

Those who defend these religions, do so, without bothering to read the text: RTFM, for those more in harmony with contemporary jargon.

In this case, the manual is Mark, my guess is you haven't read it, else you would not have written something so childish:

NO.

ABSOLUTELY not.

There is nothing "psychological" about ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

Here's wishing good fortune instead, to you, learning to read.

Sheshbazzar

In what year do you believe this to have been written?

aa5874

Again, the Egyptian in Josephus was NOT described as a Myth character like Jesus of the NT.

You seem to have very little knowledge of how the Egyptian in Josephus was described.

The story about the Egyptian may or may not be true but there are stories about Jesus that are ABSOLUTE Fiction.

In effect, the Jesus character could NOT have existed as described in any Canonised Gospels.

Your Presumptions about Jesus cannot make Jesus a figure of history.

You MUST FIND a credible source that does NOT show Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Presumptions are NOT evidence of anything.

Jesus of the Canonised Gospels could NOT have existed as described and there are ZERO credible non-apologetic sources for the Jesus character.

Doug Shaver

It doesn't have to mean that, but it can, and what it does mean in a given discussion depends on context. When the topic of discussion is whether a historical Jesus existed, it is ordinarily taken for granted that "mythical" means at least "not historically factual."

andrewcriddle

You may be confusing Maya the Hindu Goddess of illusion with Maya the mother of the Buddha.

Andrew Criddle