aa5874

So, what do you think can or cannot be real with respect to Jesus in Mark?

You claim to RELY on Mark, yet you have not been able or have refused to show the real words and activities of Jesus found in Mark.

Examine Mark 1.9-13

Please, can you say what is real, fictional, mythological or metaphorical in the fore-mentioned verses.

I think the activities of Jesus of Nazareth as found in Mark 1.9-13 are really fictional, mythological or metaphorical.

What do you think?


Please, look for the alphabetical contents of the "Fathers" then click on "Church History" under "Eusebius of Caesarea (c 265- c 340)

Or see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

This is an excerpt from the writer called Eusebius writing about gMark in "Church History" 2.15.

Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

Is Eusebius writing historically or metaphorically about gMark?

kcdad

I don't care one bit about Eusebius.

aa5874

But, you RELY on Mark. You should care what Eusebius wrote about gMark even if you believe he wrote fiction.

Now, what about Irenaeus?

This is an excerpt from "Against Heresies" about the gospel called Mark by a writer called Irenaeus.

"Against Heresies" 3.1 See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...s/advhaer3.txt

It would appear that Irenaeus is claiming that gMark was derived from information by Peter and was was written after Paul and Peter had died.

Did Peter give the author of gMark metaphorical or real information when the author wrote that Jesus was walking on water?

Did Peter metaphorically or really see Jesus as it is written in gMark?

I would really like to know which writers of antiquity you care about.

kcdad

"For it is unlawful to assert that they
preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even
venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles."

What about him?

He disqualifies himself by invoking "law" and "perfect knowledge".


In their own dialect, eh?

As authorities on the Biblical and non-canonical writings? None. Just as I wouldn't Use Merriam Webster as a commentary on Websters Collegiate...
They are separate things and have to be evaluated separately. Although they are pretty good evidence of the primacy with in the church of certain documents over others, of certain doctrines over others

aa5874

But, you have claimed that you Rely on Mark and that Jesus was non-historical but REAL, so you are supposed to have a credible historical source of antiquity that can support your position but it seems you have nothing after all but your imagination.

I have been through gMark chapter by chapter and have exposed that the contents are fundamentally fiction or implausible where Jesus was talking to the weather, talking to a tree, hearing talking-clouds, walking on water, transfiguring, and resurrecting.

I do not have to manufacture any information from antiquity to support my view that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL.

This is a partial list of the sources of antiquity that support a MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus.

1. Ignatius
2. Clement of Rome.
3. Polycarp
4. The Canonical NT
5. Josephus
6. Justin Martyr
7. Irenaeus
8. Tertullian
9. Origen
10. Eusebius
11. Jerome
12. Chrysostom

Can you please name your real historical sources of antiquity that can show Jesus was real while non-historical?

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

When the NT and Church writings are examined it is found that it was claimed that Jesus was the result of prophecy found in Isaiah 7.14.

But, upon examining Isaiah 7.14, the irrationality of an HJ becomes extremely obvious.

This is [KJV]Isaiah 7.14. Now, only in the MYTHOLOGICAL world do virgins conceive without sexual intercourse.

This is gMatthew confirming that the conception of Jesus was, in effect, the product of
MYTHOLOGY.

Matthew 1.18 Now, the Church writers agree that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God and the virgin without a human father so they too have essentially believed the MYTH or wanted their audience to believe in mythology just as they may have believed in any of the tales of the Greek Gods.

If there was an HJ who was a Jew, circumcised on the eight day, living in Judea who would have claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God without sexual intercourse?

And which Jew would have claimed that the HJ was the fulfillment of Isaiah 7.14?

Once the writings of the Church are examined it would be noticed that they claimed the Jews did not even recognise Jesus as a Messiah, the Jews recognised Jesus as a blasphemer.

This is Justin Martyr claiming Jesus was unrecognised in "First Apology".
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

So we have a combination of mythology and fiction. Jesus was conceived through mythology and his life story on earth was fictitious. He was unrecognised by the Jews and by external historical sources after healing every disease and every sickness and raising the dead.

Now, it is known why Jesus was unrecognised even if he lived, no HJ could have healed every disease and every sickness and raised the dead.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since his birth is mythological and the stories about his life on earth are total fiction or implausible.

SLD

But aa, many historical peoples claimed that they were born of a virgin or had similar stories about divine conception. Augustus's mother claimed he was conceived without intercourse while she slept in some god's temple (Apollo IIRC). The same was claimed for Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Many other miracle stories are made about them and other emperors. But they were all historical characters.

Furthermore, Jesus never claimed to be born of a virgin. That was Matthew and Luke decades later.

Not really. Hyamm Maccoby points out in his two books, "Revolution in Judea" and "The Mythmaker" that Jesus's statements are actually quite consistent with Pharasaic Judaism during the early 1st Century AD and reflect what other Jewish writers of that time period were saying. It would not necessarily be viewed as blasphemous. Nor would any claim to be a messiah, as others recognized in the gospels themselves. Claiming to be the messiah was not, to a 1st Century Jew, a claim to be God (which would be blasphemous). It is merely a claim to be the heir to the throne of David and the person who would throw off foreign rule and re-establish the "heavenly kingdom" that Israel was so many centuries before. And in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus does not claim to be any god - only in John which was written way too far after the events to be accurate.

AA, many, many non-Christian scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, Hyamm Maccoby, Burton Mack, and dozens more accept after far more study - indeed a lifetime of study - accept that there was probably a HJ on which later stories were grafted to create a new religion.

To simply dismiss HJ on the basis that he is claimed to have performed miracles would mean you would have to dismiss dozens of historical figures. The Emporer Vespasian was claimed to have cured blindness by rubbing spit into a man's eyes. Does that mean Vespasian is a complete myth? Or that he encouraged such claims so that he could be seen as a great emperor?

You've pointed out a mere fraction of the New Testament and claimed it as unreliable. I certainly do not believe that Jesus walked on the water or changed it into wine or any other silly miracle (including especially the resurrection). But none of that explains the origin of Christianity. None of that explains the volumes of Jesus's statements that are not miraculous and that are consistent with history and First Century Judaism. Scholars have written dozens of works explaining what is likely to be true in the gospels and what is fiction. Bart Ehrman's recent "Jesus, Interrupted" is but one of many examples. Also, Burton Mack's "Who Wrote The New Testament" and L. Michael White's "From Jesus to Christianity". None of these scholars accepts Christianity and agree that the gospels are far removed from the real historical character of Jesus. But they all believe that Jesus was most likely a historical person. To call them all senseless, after decades of study, is a bit unfair don't you think? Not everyone who agrees with a HJ is a rabid fundy Christian.

The far more difficult task though is to explain the origins of Christianity. Simply claiming it is all fiction explains nothing. How did this fiction actually arise? What about parts of the gospel that seem very authentic? We do know that there was a John the Baptist and a Pontius Pilate. We do know the Romans crucified or killed several other Messianic claimants during that time frame. We do know that others preached similar messages to what Jesus preached in the gospels. How do we reconcile Paul's letters, Acts, and the Gospels (including the non-Canonical) into a better understanding of the development of Christianity in the middle of the 1st Century?

To me it simply makes sense that there was a historical character like Jesus on which were grafted other stories. And that later a "God seeker" character, aka Paul/Saul, took those stories and created another mystery cult out of them and later authors wrote down more "complete" stories about this character that ultimately became the canonical gospels. I think a HJ explains what we have in the gospels and pauline letters more simply than a complete fiction. To me, if it were complete fiction, the story would be far simpler and wouldn't contain such obvious problems as Paul's strained relationships with the Jerusalem church. The fictional writers would have come up with one consistent story instead of the fractured and obviously disjointed one that we do have. If it were pure fiction, the early church would have been far more united. It seems to me that the pattern appears that we had a charismatic founder early in the 1st Century and then later followers are obviously squabbling over details and interpretation of events and religious issues. That charismatic founder is simply the HJ.

If you want to disagree, then fine, but instead of merely rehashing the argument that he performed miracles is sufficient to explain him away as mere fiction, I think you need to create a far better explanation of the origin of Christianity. I would think you would need to argue that Paul's writings do not evidence a historical character but instead a completely ethereal one, and that certain historical details about Christ in those letters were later interpolations, and then you could explain how that resulted in stories of a supposedly historical character earlier in the century. But I think it's a stretch.

Cheers! :wave:

SLD

aa5874

But, it was not the miraculous claims about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus that made them historical figures. It was the HISTORICAL records of antiquity, archaeological findings and artifacts.

Jesus Christ, quite unlike Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Augustus have virtually ALL miracle or implausible stories, and no historical sources.

Take away the miracles and the implausible from the Jesus stories and you are virtually left with NOTHING. Jesus Christ EVAPORATES into thin air.

Well, can I say that the mother of Augustus never claimed Augustus was born of a virgin it was the writers decades later, perhaps a hundred years later.


But, you seem to have forgotten that Jesus was not saying he was a Messiah. Based on the Synoptics, Jesus would warn his disciples not to tell anyone he was a Messiah and apparently only Peter knew Jesus was the Messiah.

Jesus was basically, according to the Synoptics, preaching INCOHERENT RIDDLES to the Jews so that they would remain in sin.

Mt 13:34 - Now, again based on the Synoptics, at the trial, Jesus when asked if he was the Son of the Blessed he did respond affirmatively. See Mark 14.61-62. And also Matthew 16.16 where Peter claimed Jesus was the son of the living God in the presence of Jesus.

You have also ignored or perhaps forgotten again that based on the chronology given by the Church writers that it was claimed that the Apostles including some Paul were preaching that Jesus was the Son of the God of the Jews and that Jesus, after being resurrected and ascended through the clouds, was to be worshiped as a God who had the power to forgive the sins of the Jews and that the Laws of Moses could be abandoned including circumcision.

The teachings of the Apostles and some Paul were completely unusual or absurd. I cannot find any writings of antiquity that can support such teachings as common among Pharasaic Judaism in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Philo, a Jew from Alexandria, a supposed contemporary of the so-called Jesus, claimed or implied that Jews do not worship men as Gods, not even the Emperors of Rome were deified by Jews. And in his writing "On the Embassy to Gauis", the Emperor Gaius wrote that of all the nations of the world only the Jews did not deify him.

By the way, why do you claim that the information about Jesus in the Gospels are not credible because they were written decades later and still accept stories about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Augustus written at times hundreds of years later?

And it most illogical then that you would accept the opinion of Hyman Maccoby writing at least 1500 years after the authors of the NT.

You must understand and realise that you undermine your own arguments when you use fiction and double standards to support your HJ.


It took perhaps over a hundred thousand years to come with a theory that the earth revolved around the sun.

Now, the probability that there was an HJ is not based on any historical sources of antiquity but on HONEST BELIEF. At one time, for many years, I [u] honestly believed Jesus existed until I found that the information about Jesus was NOT HONESTLY supported by external historical sources.

Mythological theories are fundamentally based on implausible and known fictitious accounts coupled with a lack of credible historical sources

I have given many more reasons why Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL. This is a partial list.

1. The entire story of Jesus is fundamentally implausible from conception to ascension.

2. His deification by Jews is implausible.

3. His betrayal, trial and crucifixion appears to be fiction.

4. His teachings or incoherent riddles were not of any significance to consider him a Messiah. Jesus did not even say one single thing negative about the Romans even though the Emperors were regarded as Gods.

5. If there was an HJ and he was crucified for blasphemy and his disciples ran away and Peter denied ever knowing Jesus, then Jesus would have been a total failure.

Again, I have gone through virtually all of gMark and have shown chapter after chapter that the life of Jesus is implausible or silly.

The details and descriptions of Jesus in the NT and the Church writings MUST be used to make any determination about Jesus, just like you would use the details and descriptions by Homer to make any determination on Achilles.

I do not have to know the origins of Greek/Roman mythology to determine that the details and description of Achilles are mythological, and it is exactly the same with Jesus. The NT and Church writings presented information about Jesus which they claimed is true and based on what they claim is the truth, Jesus was indeed mythological. He was a GOD/MAN, a Mythological Entity.

I am not interested in honest belief, I am directly interested in historical sources that can support the HJ and there is none.

The HJ is irrelevant to salvation of mankind since it was necessary for the HJ to be physically raised from the dead on the third day. Salvation of mankind [u]DEMANDS[U] an MJ, a resurrectable entity.

1 Corinthians 15.17 Perhaps, thousands of Jews were crucified in the 1st century, even Peter according to the Church, there is no explanation for Jesus to have been deified and asked to forgive the sins of mankind when, based on your own sources, the HJ probably did not do anything to be deified.

And, again once you claim that your sources for your HJ are not credible then you are wasting time promoting an HJ. You must realise by now that incredible sources are exactly what the MJ NEEDS.

You mean the origins of the Jesus stories? If so, what is so difficult about explaining the origins of the Jesus stories?

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus which cover up to or about the end of the 1st century. The extant historical sources available place the origins of the Jesus stories outside the writings of Philo and Josephus. I only deal with extant information of antiquity not honest belief.

Well, your belief makes no sense whatsoever to me after examing the NT, Church writings and other external sources.

You cannot tell me what your HJ actually did.

You have no historical sources external of the very NT and Church writings which you have rejected as fundamentally non-historical with respect to Jesus.

Based on the NT and Church writers, Peter and Paul far surpassed the NT Jesus, yet there were not deified. Peter and Paul preached for about 30 years, traveled thousands of miles all over the Roman Empire, were beaten, stoned, imprisoned, crucified and the other executed yet not deified at all. King David was not deified and not even the Messiah called Simon Bar Cocheba.

It cannot be explained why an unknown character called Jesus, a most common name, could have been deified in Jerusalem for no known reason when Jews are not even known to deify men or evenKNOWN JEWISH KINGS who were considered the Christ of God.

But, you are doing exactly that. Once you propose an HJ, you are SIMPLY proposing that the NT is complete fiction.

You must know that the NT claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator, who instantly healed incurable diseases, walked on water, was transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Is not that complete fiction with respect to your HJ?

Your HJ means what we have in the Gospels and the Pauline letters are complete fiction. But, you have an additional massive problem you don't know the truth about your HJ. You have no credible historical sources of antiquity.

Now, complete fiction supports MJ.

Well, the authors in the Canon and the Church writers for hundreds of years have claimed consistently that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.

Based on your own view then, the crucifixion and resurrection must be fiction since they are probably the only unified parts of the Jesus story.

You are propagating honest belief. The NT, Church writings and external sources have nothing whatsoever about your charismatic HJ.

The NT and Church writers are unified in their story that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.

Tell me again what you say unification means? .....Fiction....!

This thread is not about the origin of Christianity.

You have utterly failed to provide any historical sources to show or support the rationality of your belief that there was an HJ.

The very sources you reject as non-historical are the same sources you RELY ON to support your HJ.

You appear to simply honestly believe those who you think honestly believe that there was an HJ. That's all.

Now, like you, I honestly can't find any historical sources for an HJ, but unlike you, I will accept that the fictional and implausible accounts in the NT and Church writings coupled with no history is better explained by the MJ..

Only the MJ can save you from sin.

"If Christ be not raised, your ["honest belief"] faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins" See 1 Corinthians 15.17.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

The HJ theory can only be a baseless suggestion or a mere unsupported speculation since there is no credible historical source of antiquity external of the apologetic sources.

But, even the apologetic sources of the Canonical NT did not claim that they personally SAW Jesus alive on earth BEFORE he was raised from the dead.

Examine the writings with the name "PAUL".

The Church writers and the author of Acts placed an Apostle called Simon Peter/Cephas in the presence of Paul and in the Pauline writings it is admitted or claimed that the writer using the name Paul did indeed meet Peter/Cephas in Jerusalem and stayed with him for[ b][fifteen days[/b].

Ga 1:18 - So, the Pauline writer is claiming to be an EYEWITNESS of the Apostle Peter/Cephas or want his audience to BELIEVE that he was an eyewitness to Peter/Cephas.

The Pauline writer also claims to be an EYEWITNESS or wants his audience to BELIEVE he was an eyewitness to Peter/Cephas, James and John.

Ga 2:9 -

Quote:

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The Pauline writer also claimed that he was or wanted his audience to BELIEVE he was a participant or an EYEWITNESS to thePERSECUTION of the Church of God.

Ga 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it...

The Pauline writer wanted his audience to BELIEVE was an EYEWITNESS to those who b] knew CHRIST before him.

Ro 16:7 - The Pauline wroter is either an eyewitness or wants his audience to be believe he is an eyewitness to the apostles, and the persecution of the Church.

But, what about his EYEWITNESS account of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Saviour?

There is NO EYEWITNESS account of Jesus Christ from the Pauline writer.

But, the Pauline writer was supposed to be a contemporary of Jesus Christ.

Now, the Pauline writer will DESTROY the HJ.

The Pauline writer is an EYEWITNESS to the MJ.

This is the Pauline writer when he WITNESSED MJ.

1 Corinthians 15.3-8 And here is the Pauline writer describing MJ

Galatians 1.1&11-12 The Pauline writer was an [U]EYEWITNESS TO MJ[/U.

Onve there was no MJ, then there was no need for the Pauline writings. The Pauline writings would have been in vain.

1Co 15:17 - The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition based on the Pauline writer, the internal EYEWITNESS of MJ.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After being on this board for over three years, it was drawn to my attention that the HJ was a complete fallacy based on nothing but guesses and speculation not on any credible historical sources of antiquity.

When one proposes a theory of a historical nature then it must be expected that there are credible historical sources to support the theory but HJers have selected the opposite route, they use the absence of history to claim historicity.

An HJer will argue that no history of Jesus is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

How illogical.

HJers fail to realise that is exactly what an MJ will predict that Jesus has no history.

An HJ will argue that all the implausible events about Jesus are all embellishments.

Again, that is exactly what an MJ would have predicted that Jesus would be fundamentally unrealistic, implausible and fictitious.

An HJ will argue that the embarrassing stories about Jesus are likely to be historical but this is exactly what an MJ wants to hear from an HJ since the story about Jesus walking on water and the resurrection must be considered truthful in such a case.

An HJer would argue that Jesus was deified in Jerusalem because of MASS AMNESIA, that is, Jews forgot that Jesus was a man.

But, this exactly what an MJ wants to hear since it would appear that HJers forgot that the Jews did not REMEMBER to deify King David or Simon Bar Cochebas.

If Jesus did exist based on his teachings he would probably be forgotten as a loner and a mad-man.

How does a mad-man become deified by Jews and asked to forgive their sins, abandon the commandments of their God including circumcision before the Fall of the Temple?

Only through MYTHOLOGY.

Which Jew would have deified a mad-man?

Mr 9:31 - The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.