aa5874

jjramsey, please read your NT, you do not have to get flustered. I will show you again that there are two distinct persons with the name Jesus of different parentage and genealogy.
Matthew 1:16, 'And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ'.

Luke 3:23, 'And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

That is a true statement concerning the NT, you could not have said it better. But what is even more alarming, some believe this non-sense name Jesus Christ is historic, although no-one knows who he really is.

jjramsey

I am very well aware that the genealogies conflict. This does not mean that one is talking about two personages with the same name, but rather one personage about whom conflicting genealogies are reported.

You are still talking nonsense.

aa5874

You agree that the genealogies conflict, therefore both of us recognise the nonsense. Jesus Christ's genealogies are nonsense, when genealogies conflict, at least one is false. You have just discovered at least one deceiver or anti-christ. Do you know if its Matthew's or Luke's or both? Have fun finding your historical deceiver.

Ted Hoffman

Alf, there was no howler there. Isn't the 11th point accurately stating what Brunner wrote?
Brunner is rather confused. He rejects Mark, who he says is the "most stupid" of the evangelists. John, he says "dehumanizes Christ with his abstract perspective" and makes Christ ghostly and divinized.
He prefers Matthew because Matthew has failed in his sole purpose of Judaisizing Christ. He writes that though Matthew's "one and only purpose [is that] of showing how Christ's life conforms to the prophecies of Scripture" he (Matthew) fails and therefore, notes Brunner, "how different, therefore, how magnificent and wondrous is the life of Christ as presented to us by Matthew's Gospel!"
He is mad at Luke for writing his gospel for a single person: Theophilus. But he likes Luke's prose. Brunner notes, "Matthew is the most beautiful, Luke rounds out the picture charmingly".
Brunner thinks that Christ was a genius whose brilliance was so peerless and ineffable that very few were capable of even describing it. He believes though, that even though the stupid and superstitious evangelists adulterated this unutterable wisdom, we nevertheless can read Christ's sapiental words directly from them because they were eyewitnesses to the life of Christ and his genius somehow knocked down the barriers of their stupidity and found expression through their shaking, bumbling hands as they wrote the gospels.
He writes:
He only stopped short of erecting an altar forn Spinoza. Either way, I have to write a critique because we are tired of having critics claim that Brunner's densely tangled theological work qualifies as a refutation of the Christ Myth hypothesis.

jjramsey

No, I have discovered a conflict between Matthew and Luke that shows that they are not fully trustworthy. That doesn't make them "anti-christs," just fallible.

No Robots

Dude, read it again: "He was either a God or a fool or a charlatan - Julian calls him the greatest trickster and mountebank who ever lived (Cyril, Contr.Jul. 11) - or else the perfect mystical genius."

aa5874

There are many conflicts in the NT regarding the person called Jesus Christ and these conflicts reveal fallacies, not fallibilty.

I wiil show more fallacies. In Matthew 16:13-14, 'When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And they said, Some say thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Those verses, repeated in Mark and Luke, show no one recognised any person, 2000 years ago, as Jesus Christ. This fabricated figure, Jesus Christ, was mistaken for John the Baptist, who is said to have baptised him earlier. It is strange that no-one said he was Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, if you read the entire books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, you will see that only his disciples was said to know that he was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ warned his disciples not to tell any-one and Jesus died in Matthew and Luke without ever admitting he was Jesus Christ.

So the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke only believed that the characters they described was Jesus Christ, based on prophecies, the virgin birth, miraculous acts, resurrection and ascension. But, there is major problem, no prophecies, virgin birth, miraculous acts, resurrection or ascension occurred. Matthew and Luke believed in fallacies.

Another blatant fallacy is found in Matthew 16:15-18, 'He (Jesus) saith unto them, 'But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said said unto him........'for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven..... Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church'....

But it was not God that revealed the Christ to Peter, it was flesh and blood. It was Peter's flesh and blood brother, Andrew.

In the very first chapter of John v40-41, ' One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his brother Simon and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted, the Christ'.

The NT is full of fallacies. There is no historic Jesus, just endless fallacies and fabrications. No-one can show how Jesus Christ is historic except through faith.

Clivedurdle

I was wondering where CS Lewis got that from - except CS Lewis uses it to prove Jesus' divinity!

Ted Hoffman

I see your point - a quadrilemma!

Solo

Logically, the first two statements are strictly Q.E.D., and the last statement is fallacious. No-one can show Jesus Christ is "historic" through faith. In the absence of reliable, disinterested, historical data, the issue rests on probability of competing conjectural scenarios.

Jiri