aa5874

What specifically in Mark 6.3 are you talking about?

I see 2 questions and NO answers.

Examine the questions in Mark 6.13

MCalavera

Yep, mythicists are the kings when it comes to ad hoc hypotheses, with each mythicist with his own set of hypotheses that are collectively overpowered by the current evidence for the historical Jesus.

Mythicists cannot explain why it was believed Jesus the supposed Messiah came from Nazareth as effectively as historicists can.

Mythicists cannot explain why it was believed Jesus the supposed Messiah was baptized by a supposedly lesser man called John the Baptist as effectively as historicists can.

Mythicists cannot explain why it was believed Jesus the supposed Messiah failed to do miracles in his hometown as effectively as historicists can.

Mythicists cannot explain why it was believed Jesus the supposed Messiah was even crucified as effectively as historicists can.

And so on.

The list I provided is short, but the Gospel accounts are full of issues that the mythicist has yet to explain as effectively as the historicist.

I'm sticking with the historical Jesus ... until/unless I'm shown to be wrong via future evidence.

aa5874

What you say is erroneous. MYTHICISTS all state that Jesus of the NT was NOT a figure of history.

You must KNOW that it is the EXTANT CODICES that describe Jesus as MYTH.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1, and John 1.

Mythcists did NOT write the Bible.

In the NT, Jesus was EFFECTIVELY EXPLAINED as the Child of a Ghost, the Creator, and the Word that was God who was on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple with Satan, walked on the SEA with Peter in his ARMS, TRANSFIGURED in the presence of Peter, James and John, was resurrected on the THIRD day, ATE FISH after he was supposed to be dead and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

MJers have NOTHING to explain. It is the BIBLE itself which EXPLAINS the Nature of Jesus that was BELIEVED in antiquity.

HJers cannot explain why the Jesus story is history.

Well, you are STUCK with the EXTANT evidence of MYTH.

Matthewt 1:18 - Galatians 1:1 - You are SHOWN to be WRONG with PRESENT EXTANT evidence.

HJ EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Only MYTH Jesus can SAVE MANKIND from sin.

It is EXPLAINED in the NT.

Only MJ can RESURRECT on the THIRD day. Without MJ there is ZERO Faith and NO remission of Sins.

Examine the EXPLANATION in 1Cor 15:17 - The resurrected MYTH JESUS EXPLAINS it all in the PRESENT EXTANT EVIDENCE.

HJ of Nazareth EXPLAINS IMAGINATION. HJ of Nazareth is WITHOUT source.

MCalavera

Someone once told me it must be a language barrier in your case, but I never said what you think I said.

I don't see how they say what you imagine they state. Please try again.

You got that right.

The NT also describes him as a man. He was born in Bethlehem according to Matthew and Luke. He had at least a biological mother according to the Gospel accounts. He was circumcised according to Luke. He was seen as a man in the flesh. He was said to have descended from David through Joseph. He ate. He slept. He cried. He suffered pain. He was crucified. And he died.

All according to the NT.

According to Occam's razor, that's a man.

Exactly.

I provided a small list which you did not address at all. Instead, you evaded it and went on with your usual nonsensical "rhetoric" that no one but you seems to espouse.

That's not what Occam's razor suggests. Try again.

What evidence? All you did was mention verses that don't support your position at all.

That's pretty much your amateurish opinion, though. Care to address the list I mentioned?

Evidence tells us the early believers believed otherwise.

No, it isn't. Stop daydreaming.

Not according to the early believers. They really believed he was resurrected from the dead - something that all humans get to experience (death, I mean).

What explanation again?

Then address my list instead of just posting mindless garbage posts.

Toto

The mythicist and some historicist's explanation connects Nazareth with Nazorian. Some historicists think that Jesus really was from a place called Nazareth. All of these explanations are somewhat speculative - I don't see a distinction here.

Again, for both mythicists and historicists, the gospel narration is full of symbolism based on both the Hebrew Scriptures and/or astrotheology.

Er - the miracles didn't happen.

The mythicist explanation is that Jesus' crucifixion symbolized the defeat of the nation of Isreal at the hands of the Romans; his resurrection was the rebirth of that nation in a spiritual realm. The historicists have a difficult time explaining why a nobody street preacher was not summarily executed after cleansing the Temple, or why he was given a trial that does not make any sense from what we know of Jewish law.

I think that most of these issues will get the same explanation from both mythicists and historicists, most of whom concede that the gospels are full of legendary accretions, etc.

Stringbean

Nazareth never existed at least not while MJ existed.

And who saw John the Baptists do this? Just because he wrote it does not mean it happened.

Easy, you have to exist in order to do this.

Was he crucified? How do you know?

aa5874

I ADDRESS your garbage with the garbage found in the NT and you are offended.

Please, don't get offended.

You believe that there is some history in the garbage found in the NT.

I do not.

Again, in the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth that was on the Pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, walked on the sea, TRANSFIGURED, was raised from the dead on the THIRD day, ate FISH after he was supposed to dead and ascended in a cloud.


What is the best explanation for the garbage in the NT.

History or Mythology?

Please Answer me.

I say the BEST explanation is mythology.

I really don't know why some people here think that the garbage in the NT CONTAINS the history of a man when it clearly state it is a story about a Ghost.

Examine Matthew 1:18-20 A Ghost story, a Myth Fable, is the BEST explantion for the garbage in the Gospels.

I don't accept Ghost stories as history.

Sheshbazzar

Well, Duh! 'cause The BIBLE tell's us so! :Cheeky:

archibald

I think what Mcalavera is suggesting is that these items are slightly more easily explained when seen as based on actual events than, say, allegory or myth.

So it doesn't matter if miracles did or didn't happen (I think a lot of them could be better described as common or garden healings in any case), but if you were making up a messiah from scratch, would you put in that sometimes his healing didn't work?

Why would you have him from Nazareth and then have to contort your story to get him to where you really want him?

Why have your messiah get baptized by a lesser? Why would your messiah even need a baptism, wouldn't he be sinless?

And as for crucifixion, you may already know what I think. It's not even in the OT. I think it's more likely somebody, somewhere, got the chop. It seems to be there from the very earliest accounts, possibly even before Paul, who, unless the dating is all wrong, was pretty bloody close in time. Sub-lunar crucifixion? Earthly crucifixion that didn't really happen to a person who didn't exist? People may choose these options I suppose.

I've heard alternative answers to all of the above. I'm not saying they're wrong. I just think the items seem to point in the direction of some kernel that sounds more like an actual person than an allegory.

Toto

Quite possibly, if you wanted some dramatic tension.

Besides, the earliest supposed tradition is from Paul, and Paul doesn't mention any miracles or healing of any sort. Whether you are a mythicist or a historicist, the miracle healings are not part of the earliest traditions.

It's a nice sounding name for a town that might or might not have existed, but was probably too small for a synagogue.

He was baptized by a forerunner (the analog to Elijah) to initiate the action.

Actually, quite a few people were crucified. There is no lack of examples there.