Sheshbazzar

Somebody is using a lot of imagination. ^^

outhouse

How so, and in what parts exactly :constern01: ???

Grog

The entire post is a string of assertions. Evidence is what you lack.

Sheshbazzar

After you reject the things that the texts clearly state, you make up a lot of shit with no evidence to fill in the blanks.

outhouse

sorry if you want to debate my assertions. start naming them so I can address them 1 at a time

outhouse

Make up what? again everything I have stated is in the script.



details please and id be glad to address them. I'm not far off mainstream archeology and anthropology and a few modern scholarships.


Check out J Reed's work, its been on natgeo specials as well on historical jesus and the real world he lived in.


if "you" dont know the anthropology, what can you know about the real life jesus lived

Sheshbazzar

From the outhouse;
You should have told that to the writers of The New Testament. The tales which came -from them- are filled with miracle stories.
In fact the NT plot couldn't even function without the inclusion of these miraculous elements.
You have absolutely no basis from either history, or from the content of these texts upon which to hang any statement that 'jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all.' You are simply pulling this statement out of your ass. According to the texts, he did miracles and healings, and taught his disciples to perform miracles and healings. You have no evidence from anywhere that says otherwise.

From the outhouse;
That there ever was such a thing as a 'historical jesus' is not established. The stories are based on the mythology of the occurance of unprecedented and never repeated miracles.
Everything about these imaginative NT tales are fraught with 'problems' of credibility and of internal consistency. Large amounts of the material has long since been demonstrated to have been cribbed from other writings and religious traditions. Your attempt at giving legitamancy to these tales is pathetic.

From the outhouse;
Care to show how archeology in any way backs up your claims?
Explain please, How does archeology prove that 'jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all.' ?

Anthropology? You first need to provide some credible evidence that you have something more than a fictional character in a religious story.
And outside of this highly unlikely story, -one that is contained only within these books,- you have nothing.

And this is the only version of that story existent- but it is not good enough for you as is, so you yourself discredit the only evidence that you do have,
-to make up your own totally unsupported horse-shit imaginary version of the jesus tale.

Your vain imaginations only serve to molest and distort a good and touching tale, and one of mankinds ancient literary treasures, to make yourself appear to be something.
Well, you do accomplish that pretty well. an outhouse full of shit.

aa5874

We NEED the actual evidence of antiquity that was used by Scholars. What book, what chapter, which line supports your claims??

We have gone through the evidence in the Canon and there is NOTHING to support an historical Jesus.

Jesus did NOT have to exist to claim he walked on water and transfigured.

The NT CANON does NOT NEED an historical Jesus.

outhouse

Now we are getting some where


So you are saying there is no difference between biblical jesus and historical jesus??


Who wrote about the miracles?? Roman authors who hellenized the religion and wrote to a roman audience.


jesus was a jew and started a sect "within" judaism following John the Baptist teachings who was also a jew. jesus didnt teach hellenized myth's all he wanted to do was reform judaism, he never started christianity or preached it.


It is by mainstream scholarships and historians.


yes they deified a man, so what.



Im following Historians and mainstream scholarships based on proffessional study and critical examination, archeology and anthropology.


its your imaginitive opinion there was no historical jesus, atleast now I kow exactly why you have a problem with what I state.


Anthropology rebuilds what it was like to live in jesus time as a man the legends were all built around.

Anthropology shows us what it was like to be a teacher and healer in Galilee, it shows us a few toys he might have played with as a child, what size his family may have been, and what his diet might have been. Miracles were put in later by the hellenized authors of te gospels who never knew or met or heard one word pass jesus lips.

Anthropology also tells us what his daily life would have been like in all aspects and a general idea what he would have preached about due to his enviroment being oppressed buy romans coming from a poor family.


FALSE and you cannot prove differently


false again


your a myther plain and simple, most mythers have very little education or knowledge on this subject and make wild assertations due to ignorance, they latch on to very few people that do have a education and parrot off what they hear without realizing the context as well that these people they parrot from are in such a minority their not even taken seriously by anyone due to the poor cases they present.


Like or not most historians and scholars do believe in a historical jesus at the core to the roman versions of text we have.

outhouse

false

theres plenty bud. The evidence is overwhelming that there was a poor teacher of judaism that started reform movement within judaism that was put on a cross for tax evasion


You actually make a great point here, as much hellenistic dogma as was added to the real person, the real person is pretty much hidden by a roman version of who the real person actually was.


luke deals with the tax evasion and charges, allthough the gospels all have that evidence


you need to get into detail bud so I can get what your asking