aa5874

jgibson, you have nothing but semantics and useless assumptions to support the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Again, the NT is not credible, Jesus Christ is not known outside the Bible. Jesus Christ's birth as described by the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke is inconsistent. The genealogies of Jesus Christ cannot be resolved due to irregularities. Jesus Christ is said to live in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. There are no known records to show that Herod killed all the children 2 years and under to prevent Jesus Christ from becoming Govenor over Israel.

The chronology and events of his life appears to be completely fictious, Jesus Christ appears to be at least five different persons. Jesus Christ is not known to have written a single word of doctrine for his followers. No documented contemporary historian known to mankind has spoken directly to Jesus Christ, there is no record that any one has seen him. No extra-biblical source has heard him speak at any of his mammoth gatherings. No-one can say for sure where he died or where he was buried.

This Jesus Christ appears to be fiction, no-one has come forward to show otherwise.

jgibson000

But I haven't been trying to support the historicity (or non historicity) of Jesus. So I'm confounded if these are things I "have", let alone that I've put forward..

What I have been doing is trying to determine whether your claims are about what, according to you, Marcion allegedly said and what, according to you, all great religious founders did are any good, and whether you have any evidence to back them up.

Whether or not the NT is credible, whether or not there are no known records of Herod's alleged massacre, etc., etc., is irrelevant to these questions.

So ... can you or can you not cite a text from Marcion's hand that documents that he actually described Jesus in the way you claim he did? Yes or no. If yes, let's see it.

Is it or is it not the case, as you have claimed it is, that Muhammed himself wrote documents, with great detail, for his followers? Yes or no. If yes, let's see your evidence for this.

Jeffrey Gibson

Biff the unclean

Jeffery what the hell are you talking about?

Mythic Jesus is already established. Jesus the magic Jew, water into wine, curing blindness with spit, madness with dead pigs, a giant lunch out of a few left-overs, return from the dead, floats up in the air, yadda, yadda, yadda. Myth on top of myth, on top of recycled, regurgitated myth. There’s no question, there’s no discussion.

The question is; is there also an historic Jesus? Neither aa5874 nor I see one. The mythic one is plain as the nose on your face. The historic we are missing. The claim of the OP and a continuing claim in the thread is that there is an historic Jesus and all sorts of experts say so. That’s fine. So it means that those well read people supporting historic Jesus should have no problem telling us what is known about him. But instead you HJ folks just get angry that a list of experts names doesn’t answer the question. There is craziness like ‘if the evidence for Jesus isn’t good enough then you are a hypocrite with a double standard for thinking Socrates was historic’ which was so strange because I had just finished saying that if the evidence was that bad then we should write-off Socrates.
The best we got is that we should assume there was a Jesus because some favorite parts of the bible say so.
I don’t know what you HJ guys have got a bug up your butts about. We showed you the MJ, you claim there is an HJ, we don’t see it… so show it to us already and end this silliness.

jgibson000

I'm talking about whether there is any reason to accept as true claims made by "aa5874 about Marcion and about what all great religious founders did, especially since "aa5874" hasn't been willing to back up the claim he makes with any, let alone the requisite, evidence that he's been asked to produce.

I'm talking about the double standard that "aa5847" employs when he exempts himself from being responsible for backing up his claims and yet says that others are obliged to back up theirs..

I'm talking about the fact that "aa5874" (oi vey) was wrong, as he himself has noted but won't openly admit, in claiming, as he did, that all great religious founders wrote their religious ideas for their followers, and that since he is wrong, one of the arguments he uses to show that there was no Jesus is fallacious and invalid..

That may be your question. But it's not the one I've been asking. Nor is it the one that A*** is hypocritically refusing to answer.

I'd be grateful if you could point out where in this thread I've gotten angry at this.

Jeffrey Gibson

Doug Shaver

Judging from the grasp of logic you have exhibited so far in this forum, you clearly would not know a contradiction from a contraceptive.

There is no reason you should have. I have offered none for your consideration. And the reason for that is that my reasons for disbelief in Jesus' historicity are irrelevant to any point I have been trying to make with you.

I have pointed out the absurdities in several of your posts. It is not my problem if the only posts you pay any attention to are your own.

I gave you some. You ignored it.

Chris Weimer

Josephus introduces the Egyptian, not me. How can you be familiar with the historicity of Jesus if you are not at all familiar with Josephus?

Quite true! Likewise, I read a book once about an "alternative history" of Robert E. Lee involving aliens. Is Robert E. Lee also a myth?

There are no original documents of 99% of all ancient literature. Why would the NT be any different, and why does it matter?

Well, depending on your perspective, Luke appears to be a contemporary historian writing about Jesus. He makes that plainly clear in his prologue.

Mythical? Where does Marcion say "Jesus was a myth".

Modern historians also reject the reported events of his birth and unless they've got Christian bias, they also reject the resurrection. Heck, even plenty of Christians will also reject a literal corporal resurrection.

In light of that faulty and misleading information?

Chris Weimer

Biff, I was going to reply to a long post of yours, but then realized that you skipped out half of what I was saying, and mixed several posts into one without specifying who you were responding to. Mistakes happen, but if you want an answer, please straighten out your post.

Thanks,

Chris

knotted paragon

Apologies for coming in so late but I have a question about Chris' frequent use of the Egyptian.How is the Egyptian comparable Jesus? Do you, Chris, consider Josephus' works to be of the same representational quality in the case of the Egyptian and the authors of the Gospels and Jesus?

I also missed where anyone made the positive claim, as here with HJ, that the Egyptian was a real person or based on a real person.

One final question for Chris or any who consider themselves an HJ scholar: In terms of the number of candidates for possible HJ, at what point would you abandon your belief in an HJ? For instance, if it could be shown somehow that a potential Q1 itinerate preacher was not the same as the guy who got crucified, or the guy who was tempted in the wilderness, or the guy people claimed as the messiah - would you still call such a disparate composite character HJ?

thanks,

...brian...

Biff the unclean

Obviously you didn’t miss it, because it never happened.

What did happen is very laughable. There was an attempt to use a standard half arsed Christian apologetic tactic. When someone observes that the scholarship behind an HJ is piss poor the Christian, or the person playing the Christian, brings up some other ancient figure with piss poor scholarship behind them too. When the questioner states that they accept this second figure they are then accused of being a hypocrite who is only interested in undermining Jesus. Thereby diverting attention away from the piss poor HJ scholarship as the innocent questioner deals with being insulted. Magicians and con men call that ploy “the art of misdirection”

In what appears to be the exuberance of youth those playing the Christian here jumped to the end without noticing that no piss poor scholarship was being accepted for any figure, springing their trap with no mouse in it.

aa5874

It has already been established that miracles are not likely to occur. It has been claimed in the NT that Jesus Christ carried out miracles, we know today, that it is highly unlikely Jesus Christ ever did such a thing. But what is even more disturbing, and bolsters the fiction of Jesys Christ, is that these miracles were seen by many, seen by large multitudes of people. So we have hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw no miracles, but the uknown authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John claim that the miracles and the people present were historical events.

Now, if we claim that these miracles and hundreds of eyewitnesses were fictitious, embellishments according to some, then the so-called words of Jesus are also fictitious or embellishments. Jesus Christ, in the the book of Matthew alone, is claimed to have spoken over 14,500 words and is documented therein word for word. However, we know some of the words spoken, those relating to miracles, are fictitious, or embellishments. We know that any of the statements referring to eyewitnesses or multitudes of people are questionable.

So, if we can deduce that the most conspicuous events, miracles, multitudes of people and the sayings of Jesus Christ, appear to be fictitious, then what esle is fictious or embellishments?


After researching the NT, Jesus Christ appears to be fictitious, an embellishment fabricated by the authors of the NT. It is difficult to explain the motives of the uknown authors, but it is clear to see that the fabrication was deliberate.

So far, no-one has brought forward any comprehensive information to show the historicity of Jesus Christ, even though billions believe Jesus Christ was real, it is apparent that only 'faith' can make Jesus Christ 'historic'.