spin

Unlike you, to talk about things I know something about.

You've shown no ability to state views of any substance. You won't provide evidence. You hollowly negate others' views. And can only respond to opposing views by appealing to authority.

Happily enough people here are aware that you don't know what you are talking about. You are unable to comprehend anything about my education and knowledge.

outhouse

i wont provide evidence LOL


Paul, Gmark, Gluke, Gmatthew are plenty





and I understand I am a thorn in the side of mythers wanting to have a website to promote their fringe position, but that has nothing to do with biblical criticism.

speak for yourself when it comes to biblical knowlede, I have a better grasp on reality then most. Its not hillarious to watch uneducated people bag on scholars from a stance of ignorance.



you want to impress people, quit attacking the messenger and attack the message, if you can

Logical

That is weird. Muhammad wasn't much of a superman either. He basically led an empire as it rose in Arabia, an impressive but not magical feat. Why invent Muhammad? Islam isn't even centered around him like Christianity is around Jesus. Muhammad is almost not essential.

spin

This crops up yet again while outhouse is only massaging texts.

The bullshit factor.

Yes folks, another example of how stupid the criterion of embarrassment can be.

Perhaps you could stretch yourself and give a few examples so that you don't seem like an empty vessel.

Though of course outhouse knows nothing about the people of Galilee.

(Contentless spew.)

Falling over presuppositions is naturally par for the course. Paul

1. never met Jesus,
2. says that his Jesus gospel came from a revelation (Gal 1:12),
3. tells us that it doesn't come from other people (Gal 1:11), and
4. doesn't give any indications that the people before him believed in, or knew, Jesus

We don't know what any other messianists of the time believed.

I would love outhouse to learn how to provide tangible evidence.

spin

The idea seems foreign to you.

Have you ever cited from any of these given proper references? All I see is you blurting dunderheaded negations of others' views.

I don't give a stuff about mythers. You are just so off the rails you haven't even understood that simple fact. Mythers and hystericists are in the same boat, inventing pasts rather than using evidence to show the past.

I know what you've got a grasp on and it's pretty ugly.

And it's not hilarious to watch uneducated people spout authority.

The messenger is a messenger of ignorance and anti-scholarship, unable to put an argument together and muster evidence. He cannot cite sources and gives no help for other people to understand if he has any logic at all. The message he claims to bring is already known. The messenger is merely repeating the apologetic messily. He needs to show that he can present a coherent defense of the views he espouses, rather than give the impression of raving out on the heath like a Lear past his prime unable to understand where he is.

aa5874

Your claim does NOT make much sense. You show a lack of understanding of the Jesus of the Canon.

The Jesus of the Canon is a Jesus of FAITH.

Now, this is PRECISELY why there is a QUEST for an historical Jesus.

Please, please, please!!! Why have you forgotten about the QUEST.

Jesus was NOT historicised in the Gospels--Jesus was MYTHOLOGISED.

The auhor of gMatthew claimed Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Surely that is NOT historization.

The author of gLuke claimed he RECEIVED DATA of how Jesus managed to be the Child of a Ghost.

gLuke Jesus was NOT historicised he was CONFIRMED to be MYTH by the Investigation by author of gLuke who claimed he used witnesses.

And it gets worse, the author of gJohn claimed Jesus was GOD the Creator.

gJohn Jesus was NOT historicised--pure Mythology.

And, to finish off Jesus as a PERFECT MYTH, PAUL claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being, that he did NOT get his gospel from any man and that Jesus was God's OWN Son.

The NT Canon is about a Myth character who started out as a WATER walker and Transfigurer but was the Creator and God' own Son before the Canon was ended.

Jesus was NOT historicised in the Canon--Jesus was MULTIPLE ATTESTED to be a MYTH character.

The history of Jesus is one of MYTHOLOGY.

James The Least

True! And, as I've told you before, that's the best explanation that Jesus was a myth. A very Greek-Egyptian-Phrygian myth, a mimesis of Jewish prophetic concepts, rather than the real thing. That would explain, among other things, Gentiles writing anti-Jewish gospels, and bishops like Clement Romanus, Marcion, Polycarp ... not a Jew in sight, everything written in Greek and not Hebrew or even Aramaic, etc., etc.

Logical

I didn't mean specifically Palestine, but Palestine and the region surrounding it. Here's a source [holysmoke.org]:

Supposedly, those historians wrote about less significant things in Palestine around that time. I assume it should bother the HJ proponents that, assuming he existed, not only did Jesus not walk on water and raise the dead and address large crowds, but he literally didn't do crap, not a damn thing that got anyone's attention. I can see why the mythicists find that unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, if that's what happened, then that's what happened. It may be that Jesus was indeed that insignificant, and pretty much everything the later followers attributed to him was a fabrication.

Imagine that I have an imaginary friend. I write about him a couple of things in my diary, and I die. Then you investigate, and you find no independent sources confirming that friend's existence. No one recalls ever seeing him, or knowing his name, and there is no physical evidence of his existence whatsoever. Some might say, "Well, they didn't hang out that much. And that friend was shy so no one met him. He didn't go out much. Furthermore, we can psychoanalyze the diary and have a sufficient level of confidence that the words probably refer to a physical person."

I'm just saying, I can somewhat see that point of view.

Logical

Is that really enough to establish Jesus' historicity? I mean what would you say the odds are that Jesus existed? 60% or 90%?

You would concede that we're more sure George Washington existed. You wouldn't place Jesus in the same category of certainty, would you? Would Jesus be in the same category with Socrates in terms of certainty?

Logical

First of all, WHY do you CAPITALIZE words RANDOMLY and change font colors all the time? I personally appreciate your knowledge in this subject and your point of view. But you need to calm down.

Secondly, the mythicists are the ones claiming that Jesus was first claimed to be a celestial being by Paul, and then an physical man by the gospel writers. The claim then is that the idea that Jesus was born and lived in a real point in time in a real place on Earth, which is what I meant by historicizing Jesus.

And so the question was: Why did Jesus the celestial being become Jesus the historical man in early Christianity?

I take it you think the gospel writers never claimed to write history, but a parable? The gospels don't read like a myth or parable in certain spots at least, when they use language like, "In the days of King so and so in the city of so and so..." That reads like alleged history to me.