Sheshbazzar

Hardly. No one has ever yet been able to provide any 'historical' jesus. Unless you can turn up some contemorary and non-apolgetic witness, a 'historical jesus' remains a figment of peoples imaginations. The texts which we do have describe no such thing as a 'historical' jesus. They Never have, and never will.

From the outhouse;
Perhaps. Can you provide a different set of authentic first century CE Gospels which have no miracle accounts?

I thought not.


From the outhouse;
Yes, that is the claim, isn't it, for those who take these tales as being literal history. But then you have already dismissed the content of these tales as NOT being historically accurate or literal accounts.
That doesn't leave your remaining assertion based on them to be of much value, as you have already discredited the integrity of the witnessing documents that you do have, while failing to provide any other credible and contemporary source supporting your imaginative ASSertions.

From the outhouse;
Sorry dude. It has been asserted by some, and sucked up by many, but they are all as lacking in any supporting contemporary non-apologetic evidence as you are.

From the outhouse;
So we know the tales lack credibility, and there is no evidence that can be produced proving that any such 'man' ever existed other than within these highly fictionalized religious propaganda TEXTS.

From the outhouse;
Yeah, well you still forgot to tell me how archeology proves that; "jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all." care to give it a shot?
You are mostly following religious garbage and opinions produced by uncritical scholars, or those that are so beholding to 'The Good Old Boys Club of Biblical 'scholarship' and Institutions that cannot ever afford to ever rock that 'consensus boat' without sinking their precious careers.

From the outhouse;
No imagination required. I read the texts, they tell a horse-shit story.
I'm not the one who is hell bent on -making up- a different story than the one given.

From the outhouse;
Have a reading problem? The QUESTION was 'how ARCHAEOLOGY in any way backs up your claims that; "jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all."

From the outhouse;
Have a reading problem? The QUESTION was 'how ARCHAEOLOGY in any way backs up your claims'

From the outhouse;
An unprovnanced ASSertion made from stupidity. You have not one whit of any actual evidence that the miracles were not part and parcel of the stories from the very first day that they were first penned.
The entire plot of these Gospels depend upon the performance of these miracles. Take them out and you have no Gospel story.
(Go ahead give it a shot. Try writing out your version of the Gospel with no miracles. It won't work.)

If you insist the miracles were not part of the original manuscripts, it is your responsibility to produce such TEXTS or other positive evidence that your assertions are correct.
Until you, or your 'experts' do produce such texts I'll stand solidly by the opinion that you are simply full of shit.

From the outhouse;
Anthropology can also tell us about Robin Hood and his Merry Men, and what daily life was like in Sherwood Forest, and for pesants living under ye Olde English rule. But that don't do jack-shit to prove or evidence there ever being any actual 'historical Robin Hood'.

From the outhouse;
Again only another empty ASSertion on your part. The ONLY story you actually have is that one that presents a fantastic and mythical Godling performing miracles right and left.
You are the one asserting that this character lived, thus the burden is upon you to provide the proof that any such character ever existed outside of these religious propaganda TEXTS.
Thus far you, like everyone before you, have not, and cannot provide any such proof.

You can believe in a 'historical' Jack and The Beanstalk if you want, But you have presented no valid evidence to support belief in your version of your Fairy-Tale.

From the outhouse;
Well, it is quite obvious that you are not following the content of the TEXTS as they are given.
And what you are presenting is not supported by those TEXTS, nor by any other ancient evidence that you can provide.
So it is quite reasonable, in that you can provide no other ancient sources for your ASSertions, you must be pulling them out of your ass.

From the outhouse;
Do you have any idea just how utterly uneducated and stupid you sound? I learned, and have spent over 30 years in reading and studying the entire Torah, Prophets, and Writings, (Tanaka) in Hebrew, as well as the entire NT as rendered into the Hebrew language, and can recite and write out Psalms and verses from memory, accurate to the letter, As well as having decades of study of these self-same texts in both Greek and Latin.
Should I post here a few pages of texts of which you cannot read or understand as much as even one single word?
Unless you have greater language knowledge and skills, you would do well to get the hell off of your ignorant and arrogant high horse.

From the outhouse;
You do a great job of describing yourself here.
I do not depend upon reading and citing commentaries and second hand opinions like you do.
You may seach through the thousands of my posts within these Forums, very seldom will you ever find me quoting or referencing any so called 'expert' or 'scholarly' opinions. Because, unlike you, I do possess the knowledge and the skills to do my own research.

From the outhouse;
That may well be what they believe, but even they cannot provide one more bit of proof or evidence to back up that beliefe than you do.



ששבצר העברי מדברי אל־החמר הסרר ואויל הזה׃






.

mountainman

If we were to believe JRR Tolkien then there is overwhelming evidence that Bilbo Baggins at one stage possessed a magical ring. What evidence is there to establish that the new testament is in anyway related to historical events, and not just another popular and romantic fiction story?

Doug Shaver

Changing the subject, eh? Can't say as I blame you.

outhouse

not really, covering all the bases.

price is not well accepted and holds less then a minority position.


his 3 pillars are weak

outhouse

that wasnt the question


because they created a deity, and gave a man god like powers, like other known living men doesnt mean the whole story was created.


they had to make the man more powerful then other deities to gain followers. no one would follow a weak deity.

good lord, please learn history if you want to debate it.



the rest of your post was babbling on with no real knowledge of the subject at hand

Toto

You have shifted the burden of proof. There were in fact historical men who were turned into supernatural gods. This does not mean that every supernatural figure described in ancient literature has a real man at the center of the myth.

You don't know who you are talking to. You might do well to follow that advice.

See above.

steve_bnk

It is pointless to endlessly rehash the gosples fort clues of proof or disproof, neither are there. One can look at tne times and imagine a number of itinererant rabai/prophets prophesizing gloom and doom for Israel. It is what Jewish prophets did.

All's you have to look at for general parallels is the genesis of the Mormons and Scientology. Both fabrications and both peopled with true believers.

outhouse

Nor did I imply that


I know who im talking to has no concept of a historical jesus.


people with any credibility dont waist any time with personal attacks as seen.

all she needed to say was "I dont believe in a HJ" other then that, she hadnt refuted a single sentance of who I claim HJ was.

outhouse

I might add that all the knowledge in the world on the subject is useless if one builds a false history with it.

outhouse

Heres a little test for jesus mythers.

is there a historical core to noahs flood?