aa5874

Why do you refuse to answer my questions.

I will answer yours.

None of the main characters in the gospel stories, Jesus, Peter and Paul have any historical records of their existence in the 1st century.

And, secondly, I have found fiction in the gospel stories and in the letters with the name Paul.

The NT is therefore not credible with respect to Jesus Jesus, Peter and Paul.

I must therefore consider the entire cast as fiction until credible infirmation can be found.

This is completely false. You are a blatant fabricator.

I did not make up Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Acts 1.9 and 1 Corinthians 15.3-8.

Again, why do you refuse to provide historical evidence for Jesus, Peter and Paul. Tell me what is true about those characters?

I have provided the evidence of fiction already. I will show you some of them again.

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Acts 1.9 and 1 Corinthians 15.3-8.

I don't make stuff up like you.

When will you provide any historical evidence for Jesus, Peter or Paul?

figuer

I don't refuse, I just don't care (since am not partial to any of the positions). I don't see the relevance, and I don't think your position is logical. It is fine to consider that Jesus might have been a complete fabrication, as long as the possibility is maintained that Jesus might have been historical. To assume a fixed position is unneeded.

False, they do: Text claiming their existence (the Bible). That those documents are unreliable as to establish certainty is another matter altogether.

Fiction is likewise found in the Iliad, that doesn't mean some aspects of the story are not based on truth.

It isn't incredible either. It is an insufficient source, but a source nonetheless.

And I consider such certainty unwarranted and ilogical.

.

Historical evidence has been presented, why do you refuse to acknowledge it? I don't know what is true or not to those character or not (if anything), but I do know there is no basis to form a fixed opinion.

I know quite well there are fictional elements, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that there are historical elements as well. Your "all or nothing" position is irrational.

Yes you do, misrepresenting my position for instance, or denying that there is evidence.

The Gospels. They are historical evidence, simply not conclusive in themselves.

You need to learn to distinguish between non-conclusive evidence and no evidence. Plus, it seems that you are under the wrong impression concerning motive to doubt the validity of your position: Neither No Robots (to whom the questions were addressed) or I are Christians/theists.

aa5874

And if Jesus/Christianity did not actually exist at the time specified, we are looking at lies of elephant proportions.


Against the Galileans by Julian Book I

aa5874

Don't you see that it is you who have a fixed position.

I repeat, your position is fixed.


You simply do not care about the lack of historical evidence, and that, even up to today, the Church maintains that it is true that Jesus is the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did resurrect and ascend to heaven, and continue to be locked and fixed in your claim that it is possibly Jesus existed.

If no historical evidence is found in your lifetime, you will be fixed and locked for life in your claim.

Historical evidence or lack of historical evidence is irrelevant to your fixed position.

On the other hand, my position can be changed with credible historical evidence for Jesus. My position is directly dependent on historical evidence for Jesus.

Let's look at both positions and you will see that yours is FIXED.

My position: Jesus of the NT is fiction or mythology UNTIL credible historical evidence can be found.

Your postion: It doesn't matter if there is historical evidence or not, it is just possible that Jesus existed.

Your position is locked and fixed.

figuer

Repeat it all you want, since I don't have a position, pro or contra, regarding a historical Jesus, your statement is ridiculous.


False.

What the churches do with such conceptions is irrelevant to the rational analysis of the subject.

I don't see how it is impossible that a crazy Jewish Rabbi lived at the time specified, was crucified and a cult developed around him. No evidence points towards the impossibility of such a claim.

.I don't have a claim.

Since the evidence is non-conclusive, pro, or contra, I don't need to assume a position regarding the subject.

So is mine.

You are being unecesarilly ridiculous and fanatical.


No, my position is: There is no conclusive evidence pro or contra, regarding a historical Jesus, thus I see at the moment no need to form a fixed opinion.

aa5874

You have a position.

You want the possibility that Jesus exist be maintained even though there is no historical evidence.

You have a position.

You do not want people to claim Jesus was a myth even though there is no historical evidence and the Church presented Jesus as a mythical creature born of a virgin without sexual union, resurrected and ascended.

You have a position and it is fixed. You don't care about historical evidence or the quality of the evidence, you just want to maintain that it is possible that Jesus might have existed.

figuer

I see that you enjoy being ridiculous and fanatical. The above statement was conditioned on the present historical evidence, which is non-conclusive. My position is not fixed, I will gladly change it: Just show me why it is impossible that a crazy Jewish rabbi named Jesus lived around the time claimed and had a cult develop around him? Can you demonstrate the impossibility of the above?

aa5874

Now, you have not only fixed your postion, you have made it impossible to be changed.

You must realise by now people can believe that it is possible that anything exist, but it is a complete waste of time to maintain a belief without evidence.

People believe in ghosts. Some people believe that things which were described as ghost were actual people.

Are you one them?

If I attempt to show you Matthew1.18. Luke 1.35, Acts 1.9 and 1 Corinthians 15.3-8, you might just close your eyes.

You don't care what the church wrote about Jesus only what you imagine is possible.

Matthew1.18, Luke 1.35 and Acts 1.9 are impossible and 1 Corinthians 15 is a lie.

It is impossible to prevent people from believing the impossible is possible.

figuer

I am more than willing to change my position: Just prove there is no possibility of a mad Jewish rabbi living at that time and having a cult develop around him. Notice I am not referring to any divine/magic aspects, just the human aspects. Since you can't prove such impossibility, and on the contrary, all evidence points out to it being completely possible that there were such type of Jewish madmen/cults around the time, my non-committed position on the subject is established as the most rational.

Per the above, it seems that you are unable to understand the concept of historical Jesus: It is not that Jesus as presented (man/god/saviour) existed, but that the myths surrounding Jesus developed around a historical person (a Jewish teacher with messiah complex). Get it? Shall I repeat: Historical Jesus isn't that Jesus is a real saviour and that he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead. Historical Jesus simply is the concpetion that there might have been a Jew named Jesus with a messiah complex who was crucified and around which developed a cult who concocted a series of myths around their dead teacher. Mythical Jesus posits that there was no such person around which the myths developed, but it was just a fiction from begginning to end. I don't see any conclusive evidence regarding these two positions.

aa5874

Everybody knows what HJers believe. Just tell them to prove it and stop wasting time.

How many times are you going to repeat the HJ position.

It is simple. Jesus was human.

Now, just prove it. Present your evidence.

My position is clear and simple. Jesus ws a myth or fiction. I present Matthew 1.18. Next Luke 1.35. Then Acts 1.9. After 1 Corinthians 15, and then De pricipiis by Origen.





I hope you realise by now that you will NEVER SEE evidence for a myth. You will NEVER SEE evidence for Achilles, the myth.

You can't see evidence for a myth.

You can't see any evidence Jesus?

You are looking at a myth.

You still can't see?