aa5874

If it is ASSUMED Jesus called Christ was human in the NT then it is quickly realized that he was a Total Failure and a False Prophet who died in Disgrace and was Abandoned by his supposed disciples.

In effect, the ASSUMED historical Jesus, is the LEAST likely inspiration for the Gospel stories.

If Jesus was human then:

1. The Baptism story is fundamentally FICTION and have no theological value.

Once we REMOVE the Hocus-Pocus from the Baptism story where Jesus LEVITATED out of the river, the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a Dove and the TALKING Cloud then we would have had NOTHING to read. See Mark 1.1-12.

2. The Temptation story of Jesus by Satan is fundamentally fiction and has no theological value.

The Temptation story Follows the Baptism Fable but if is assumed Jesus was simply baptized by John WITHOUT the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost then the temptation by Satan is just a MAGIC story.

3. The miracles of Jesus are fundamentally fiction and have no theological value.

Again, once we REMOVE the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost from Jesus and make him an ORDINARY man then he becomes POWERLESS and MEANINGLESS.

The "Spit and Touch" miracles of Jesus are all fabricated IMPLAUSIBLE stories.

4. Jesus claimed he would Resurrect on the THIRD day.

The resurrection claim by Jesus was UTTERLY FOOLISH for within 72 hours he was KNOWN to be a FALSE prophet. The resurrection claim has NO theological value if Jesus was a MAN.

Now, when Jesus was ARRESTED his Disciples FLED and Later Peter DENIED ever knowing him. See Mark 14.

Jesus was LATER Crucified after being condemned to be guilty of death for BLASPHEMY and when the women went to the Burial site the Body of Jesus had VANISHED and they also FLED and told NO man anything. See Mark 16.

The historical Jesus, the man Jesus WITHOUT the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost, ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING but DIED in DISGRACE WITHOUT his disciples who had abandoned him.

But, the historical Jesus is even MORE of DISASTER than Previously thought he would become a False Prophet within 72 hours of his death.

It is CLEAR that the Historical Jesus, an ordinary man, is a DISASTER, a Blasphemer and False Prophet.

jgoodguy

Me thinks you mean the Gospel Christ not the Historical Jesus.

aa5874

Me thinks you don't understand that the historical Jesus is based on the NT.

One cannot INVENT an Historical Jesus from WHOLE CLOTH that no-one wrote about in antiquity and then claim that there was an Historical Jesus.

If there is NO credible historical source with DETAILS of HJ then we ONLY have the GOSPEL Myth Jesus.

All persons who support the Historical Jesus EXCLUSIVELY use the very NT as their source for their HJ.

When HJers claim their HJ was baptized by John, was from Nazareth, was an Apocalyptic preacher and was Crucified under Pilate what Jesus are they talking about?

ME THINKS the Historical Jesus was LIFTED from the NT.

ME THINKS there was NO Historical Jesus.

ME THINKS Jesus was just a MYTH fable like Marcion's Phantom who had NO birth and Flesh and was BELIEVED to have existed in the 15th year of Tiberius the same time as the Child of the Ghost in the GOSPELS.

JonA

Yawn.

aa5874, are you ever going to say anything that folk won't regret having wasted the time reading?

Your babblings are incoherent and full of gibberish.

Do they even make sense to you?

aa5874

I DON'T believe you. You may have some hidden issues. You do not appear to be credible. You come across as some one who is UNREASONABLE.

Now Perhaps, you don't even know that the baptism story of Jesus by John is fundamentally fiction if Jesus was an ordinary man.

Please REVIEW the Baptism story as found in Mark 1.

Mark 1 This is an OBVIOUS Fiction story and has NO theological value if Jesus was an ordinary man being baptized by John.

Please REVIEW the Temptation. Perhaps you don't even understand that the temptation is fundamentally fiction and has NO theological value once we remove the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost from Jesus.

Mark 1Please REVIEW the miracles of Jesus. Perhaps you don't even understand that they are fundamentally fiction if Jesus was an ordinary man.

Mark 7:31-37 - Mark 8:22-26 - These miracle stories are FUNDAMENTALLY fiction and have NO theological value if Jesus was an ordinary man.

Please REVIEW the teachings of Jesus that he would Resurrect on the THIRD DAY.

Mr 9:31 - So, if we ASSUME Jesus was ordinary man WITHOUT the Hocus-Pocus Holy Ghost then he had NO theological value and WITHIN 72 hours of death he will be KNOWN to be a FALSE prophet.

Jesus will NOT resurrect on the third day.

Let us CONTINUE the REVIEW.

When Jesus was ARRESTED his disciples FLED.

Mr 14:50 - Peter DENIED that he knew Jesus THREE times.

Mr 14:71 - So the disciples had ABANDONED Jesus.

But, things are going to GET WORSE.

If Jesus was an ordinary man he would BLASPHEME in the presence of the Sanhedrin and People would SPIT on him and beat him.

Mark 14 Now, After Jesus was crucified and the visitors went to visit the body of Jesus it had VANISHED.

Mark 16. The "Historical Jesus" is a DISASTER. If Jesus was an ordinary man in gMark then he died in DISGRACE as a BLASPHEMER without his disciples and would be deemed a False Prophet within 72 hours of his death.

The DISGRACED "historical Jesus" had NO theological value in gMark.

The "historical Jesus" is a DISASTER.

Chili

Two wrong assumptions here that you cannot make:

First, Jesus was never called Christ in the NT (except after resurrection), and second, Jesus was not human or he'd be a sinner and THUS was also not a Jew . . . or Jews could go to heaven and that will never be . . . as Jew, nor Catholics for that matter as only Jesuits and Nazarites can get there.

aa5874

The historical Jesus is an inherent disaster since any claim made about HJ will be an unsubstantiated claim since there is NO credible corroborative historical source of antiquity to support the claim.

Let us take any random claim about HJ.

1. HJ was baptized by John the Baptist.

Well, what sources of antiquity mentioned John the Baptist external of Apologetic sources?

There is Jospehus "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.

Does "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 state that HJ was Baptized?

The answer is NO.

Does the normal baptism of an OBSCURE ordinary man who was unknown to John of any significance?

The answer is NO.

Is there any Baptisms by John of ordinary obscure people which is mentioned in the Gospels?

The answer is NO.

Well, it is just that simple.

The claim that HJ was baptized by John is an unsubstantiated claim.

In effect, the claim that HJ was baptized by John is no different to a claim that HJ baptized John.

HJ is an inherent disaster.

Steve Weiss

The entire bible is semi-historical fiction A-Z, so you might pick out any story, run it through a verification check, and come up with zero. Religion is pure mythology that random groups identify with because they feel like it because they believe that faith commands reality. Of course, it doesn't, but the facts won't impress believers. In fact, the more wild the claim the more they believe it as a test of their faith. That's why one must choose between reason and faith. There is no compromise possible.

RogueBibleScholar

Wrong. There is still Mk. 1:9: "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

Should we reject that hocus-pocus can happen a priori? I don't suppose you'd convince many true believers that way. Have you proven, e.g., that a historical person named Jesus believed such things had happened to him? A much more promising route, IMHO, is to note the great similarity this story has with the story of the Buddha being tempted by demons when he was seeking enlightenment.

I don't understand why they have no theological value; when generations of Christians believe they do. They demonstrate God's signifying His approval of Jesus. If you are an atheist, and are 100% certain (although this conflicts with sound scientific reasoning, to be 100% certain of anything) that God does not exist, then NOTHING has any theological value, whatsoever. Perhaps you are Jewish, and wish to evaluate the theology of the Christian scriptures from a Jewish point of view; or perhaps an agnostic point of view?

To whom? Christians? If we posit a historical circumstance where he claimed, or even thought to have been resurrected, you have not demonstrated that anyone KNEW he was no longer an earthly Messiah claimant.

Again, if Jesus was a man, his claimed resurrection would have had immense theological significance to his believers. Please clarify to whom it would not, or should not. If He was a man, he may have even believed he had died and been resurrected.

What precisely have you thus proven?

The Jesus of India stories suggest that He had ultimately settled in India. Ireneus claims He lived to an old age. He promised to be gathering the 12 tribes from the ends of the earth. It would not have been obvious to anybody in the First Century that he was not going about doing this.

We can now say that He failed to create an earthly kingdom, as promised in the prophets. However, the exact point of dispute between the Christians and the more orthodox Jews of the era was if there would be one or two advents of the Messiah. To claim to have proven anything, you should first prove that there was to be only one advent; whereas Christian commentators apportion some prophesies to the First Coming and others to the Second.

I do not happen to believe that Jesus was a historical figure; but I do not find your reasoning especially compelling.

aa5874

Precisely, Mark 1.9 would be the LAST verse to read in gMark if we remove the hocus-pocus Holy Ghost.

There is no Jesus story without the hocus-pocus Holy Ghost.

Jesus needed the Holy Ghost at the Baptism to PERFORM and the apostles also needed the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. See Acts 2.

If we use gLuke, then it will be seen that Jesus was UNKNOWN for 30 years and there is nothing written of Jesus in Nazareth until the Holy Ghost descended upon him.