Toto

The only reason the historicity of Jesus is of interest is that he is reputed to be at the center of the development of the Christian religion. We know that Christianity existed, at least by the second century, if not the first. If you say that Jesus is not historical, you are saying that there is an alternative origin of Christianity.

In fact, the existence of a Christian movement is probably the strongest evidence for the existence of Jesus.

So, your job is not just to repeat, like a parrot, that Jesus is not historical. That's gotten way beyond being boring. If Jesus was not historical, where did Christianity come from? Why did early Christians insist that he was historical - most religions didn't require a historical basis, and still don't. These are the interesting questions.

aa5874

Where did Zeus come from?

aa5874

Jesus the Christ existence is false, not hysterical.


Before I go out, I need an intelligent answer with respect to Luke 1:34,"Then said Mary to the angel How can this be, seeing I know not a man?

What did Jesus the Christ look like, seeing that his father was a ghost and his mother was human?

aa5874

Please have a look at Against Heresies by Irenaeus and you may see many versions of the mythical Christ. Have a look at the doctrines of Valentinus, Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates and others.

spin

You are welcome to your belief.

You are not asking an intelligent question, so you shouldn't expect an intelligent question. You assume things in the question that are not coherent.

People have tried to show you where your assumptions lead you astray but you are making of it very hard going.

First you accept that real people can have unreal traditions develop around them, then you don't allow that acceptance to extend to Jesus, who may have been a real person around whom a series of unreal traditions developed.

I have never seen a ghost, so, if such things exist, I can't tell you what they look like. So, to return to the question you asked, I'd have to say that I have insufficient data to answer. I doubt that you've seen a ghost, so I can't see how you could answer either.


spin

Steven Avery

The Jewish Encyclopedia equates the Herodians with the well-known Boethusians, a group connected with Herod yet largely Sadducee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin It's a Latin term. Who else other than Mark (and Matt through fatigue)

Ahh .. talk about INVENTIONS !!
Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin note that I specify the second reference in Mark

Yes, you no longer can try to pretend that Matthew didn't know of the alliance, now you have to use "FATIGUE" as your apologetic for the proposed spin "non-redaction where they should be a redaction". (A brand new spinism.) Talking to skeptics can be a real laugher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin The notion of Pharisees and Herod supporters conspiring to kill Jesus is not an inspiring historical concept.

Yep. On that we agree.
Jesus even lumped their leaven together.

Mark 8:15
And he charged them, saying,
Take heed,
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,
and of the leaven of Herod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I can't respond for Toto here, but I think anyone knows that your apologetics aren't much use even to you.

Attempted insults from you I take as with a and as a compliment. Outside the hard-core skeptic crew I find fine dialog and you can try to speak only for Spin and the Skeptic Rah-Rahs.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

What are the primary sources? You know you need them.

Language matters are beyond you.

You can fantasize about an "alliance". The Matthean author is merely making what can be made of the Marcan source.

Talking to people who show no desire to know what they are talking about can be a real bore.

I know it will come as a surprise to you, but I have no desire at all to insult you, praxeus.

You don't do dialog, praxeus. You apologize -- and you have a lot to apologize for.


spin

aa5874

You finally got it. I do my research and make my own assessments as I see it. It is of no consequence what you say about me.

Jesus has not yet been established or accepted to be a real person by me. I cannot find any extra-biblical corroboration of him. I do not regard the NT as credible. The NT contains, fundamentally, stories about a character who is the son of Ghost, that pre-existed as a God in an unknown location called heaven. I regard these stories as fairy tales.

I need some sort of evidence, external of biblical sources, to place Jesus the Christ in Galilee, Jerusalem, Nazareth, in a synagogue, on a cross, in a tomb, talking to a chief priest, Herod, Pontius Pilate or some contemporary historian, poet, doctor, soldier, astronomer or astrologer in the 1st century.

I will tell you, straight up, I regard the NT as utter nonsense, and without some external corroboration, they will remain so in my opinion.

No HJer has given any credible extra-biblical corroboration of Jesus the Christ. No HJer has placed Jesus the Christ in the region, they have not found or have been able to place his thousands of followers or any of his teachings in the first century.

After 500 posts, I have not seen a single piece of credible information that would put a figure called Jesus the Christ, his followers or his teachings in the 1st century.

As I have written before, I cannot find anything true about Jesus the Christ in the NT, I cannot find anything true about him external of the NT, I therefore regard him as fiction, mythological fairy tales.

If anyone have any credible information that can place Jesus the Christ, his followers or his teachings in the first century, then I will investigate and review my position if necessary.

It is a waste of time to tell me that it is possible that Jesus the Christ existed unless you have some credible information. I have gone beyond possibilities, I have done my investigation and everything points to impossibility.

Now I may have missed some critical information, some information that may overturn my position, after 500 posts I still wait. I have the patience.

spin

When you tart up your beliefs with the clothing of logic (remember this: "It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false"?), then supposedly what you say is open to analysis. Beliefs aren't.

At the same time he has not been excluded from the category, despite your appeals.

That will make it hard to include him in the historical category.

What value are these opinions?

I can understand that.

You've done almost nothing else but say this, ad nauseum. Most of us got the idea after the first dozen times. Can't you get past this point in your philosophical development?

You may be right.

It's pretty bad, you must admit, saying the same stuff that often.

Yes, I know you have written have written have written that before.

Yes, we know the tune.

It's a waste of time to repeat your belief that Jesus did not exist. You may be right, but hell, do you have to be such a one-trick magus?

Little else, it seems.

We on ii know your opinions. We know the evidence available. We have moved on. It's time you did as well. Most people here, if you haven't gathered yet, are not christians, so your beliefs come as no revelation to us. What you seem to hope to want to get here is extremely unlikely. You are preaching to the wrong crowd. Why don't you assault a christian forum with this stuff or move on to something else here?


spin

mountainman

We know that christianity existed at least by the fourth century
when all the basilicas were built across the Roman Empire, and
when "christianity" became a state religion. Archeological evidence
is very concrete in the fourth century, but bleak in the prenicene.

Before the 4th century are many assumptions and inferences
extrapolated from the literature tradition published to the empire
by a malevolent despot, in the 4th century.

So aa5874 should in some sense provide an explanation how the
"christian religion" emerged at least in the 4th century even
though his argument is that the historicity of JC is zero. The
reason I think this needs to be done is that this "historicity" thing
is really only one small part in the puzzle, and cannot stand in
isolation. It needs to be drawn into a bigger picture.