outhouse

no myther has ever been able to refute why romans would deify a poor jew who lived a life below that of a common peasant.

basically romans made one of their slaves a deity.


and paul makes a very clear case jesus was man and god which have never been thought of as interpolations by anyone with credibility.


mythicism has not made it out of "joke land" and only 2 real scholars out of hundreds have even made a weak case for mythicism, which are both easily refuted.

I think Carrier will try and make a attempt just because he wants to practice his debating and writing skills, but even then, its unlikely he will have a decent case that makes sense to most people, when we have a very plausible legend as it stands

Toto

Isn't that the entire issue?

:huh:

Sheshbazzar

The only Jezuz that is 'historical' is the one who was the unnatural offspring of a ghost/god and a virgin, pulled rabbits out of his hat, walked on water, rose from the dead, teleported about, and levitated off into the clouds while his 'witnesses' watched.

THAT is the only Jezus of Nazareth described, and there has never been any other Jezuz of Nazareth known.

Steven Carr

Please, do.

Where was Ehrman's explanations of Doherty's Top 20?

Just why did Jesus exist because a story of him raising a child from the dead had Aramaic words in it?

outhouse

if you cant figure this out you may never grasp the reality of the situation.


no one claims theology doesnt contain mythology

ApostateAbe

Direct me to Doherty's Top 20, and I will include that in the wiki.

A theory is made sound if the evidence fulfills many unique expectations of the theory (predictive power). The Aramaisms indicate roots in Aramaic-speaking people, and that fulfills one of the expectations of gospel traditions beginning with a historical Jesus, as Jesus reputedly belonged to a population that spoke Aramaic. There are a bunch of mythicists who think that the gospel traditions originated in the Greek language, and the point about Aramaisms would of course blow that mythicist position out of the water. It is of course still possible that Jesus was a myth that began in the Aramaic language, which is what I would accept if I were a mythicist.

James The Least

not this BS again.

you just make the case stronger for the mythical Jesus theory by pointing out how absurd the idea is that Romans would worship some anonymous dead Jewish peasant. love the irony.

The Romans who worshipped Jesus didn't give a rat's ass about some "historical" Jew wandering around Palestine, that's why. They worshipped the Son of God who could grant them eternal life according to the ancient scriptures of the prophets.

outhouse

your post is based on a position that mainly consist of uneducated internet bloggers.


to show you how silly your post is.


we know for a fact before jesus legends there were large groups of Romans worshipping the jewish god who not fully convert to judaism, they were called god-fearers. these were not new converts to the OT, were talking about people who studied the OT their whole lives and held it scared.

and the OT not only has the same ressurection legends that mirrors jesus, but also claims a messiah would come. they would have known this.

So its not a stretch at all that paul couldnt get poor roman god-fearers into believing in a jewish messaih that would save them before the end of the world came, and offered free health care in a time of poverty and desperation removing those nasty spirits. and forgive them of all their wrong doing so they could have everlasting life.


please get a education on this subject before you come at me with this sort of nonsense, romans worshipped "son of god" mortal emporers as well. whats your point

Steven Carr

You are joking aren't you? This is truly pathetic. No wonder people hold conferences to remind NT scholars that their methods are totally bogus.

The Hitler Diaries are not genuine, even if they are written in German, the very language Hitler spoke.

And Daniel did not exist, even if the Book of Daniel has bits of Aramaic in it.

This is a no contest, if all historicists can do is say that the myths about Hercules were not written in Hungarian, but were written in Greek, and this is very good evidence that Hercules existed.

aa5874

You are making stuff up. If Jesus got Crucified by the Romans what could a Pharisee do to make Roman citizens worship a crucified dead Jew??

You believe Myth Fables are history. So much for education

Please get familiar with Roman Greek mythology. The very Emperors of Rome worshiped Mythological Gods and Sons of Gods.

Romans do NOT worship Only human characters.

There is no documented evidence in Roman history that the Romans actually knew Jesus was NOT God born of a Holy Ghost.

Romans worshiped Jesus as a God when it was publicly declared that he was the Son of a Holy Ghost and God the Creator.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Romans who worshiped Jesus claimed he had a human father--None.