Larkin31

This is more dancing. This does not answer the question.

I am wondering if you are worth the time.

I will ask again: Is absence of evidence sufficient evidence of absence? Please do not merely reply that all non-existent things have no evidence (we all already know this). I want to know how valuable to your reasoning "absence of direct historical evidence" from 2000 years ago is.

And, furthermore, you might answer my question (that I have asked twice) about why you both reject the Bible as false evidence and yet still list it most often as your "source" to contradict HJ. You appear to be playing loosely with a source that you both want to reject and still use when it suits you.

aa5874

Why do you constantly ignore all the abundance of MYTHOLOGICAL information about Jesus. I have already posted the two fundamental criteria for MYTHS. Look at them again.

1. KNOWN non-historical characteristics and activities.

2. No known credible historical sources of existence.

Jesus of the NT FITS the criteria perfectly.

Jesus is a perfect MYTH.

Many of the mythical Gods were around 2000 years ago and people believed they did exist, that they answered prayers and healed people.

The mythical God Serapis healed people in the 1st century just like Jesus.

There is an absence of historical evidence for Serapis and Jesus. They are all myths.

Now, tell me what is the source for "Harry Potter"?

Now, tell me what is the source for Jesus of the NT?

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After going through gMatthew and gMark chapter by chapter it is found that the conception, temptation, the miracles, the walking on water, the transfiguration, the trial, the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are all either implausible or non-historical.

If Jesus was human, he most probably did none of the things and most probably said none of the sayings found in the Gospels.

And now, if one examines the Pauline writings, if Paul is assumed to have been a contemporary of Jesus, it cannot be determined the basis for the deification of a man who did nothing.

After going through the Pauline writings chapter by chapter, verse by verse, the Pauline writer did not write about the miracles of Jesus, the life of Jesus, the sayings of Jesus, except that Jesus did a most implausible act, he wrote that Jesus rose from the dead and that without the resurrection of the supposed man the sins of mankind could not be forgiven.

And, what is even more incredible, after having written nothing about the biography
of the man, he claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

The Pauline writer does NOT explain how a supposed man was able to be deified in Jerusalem and called the Lord and Saviour, Son of God and Messiah and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews, and abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

Paul referred to the supposed man as the Son of God not even King David was called the Son of God who had the power to forgive sins of the Jews and abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision.

What did this supposed man do that far surpassed King David? The Pauline writer claimed it was the resurrection.


1Co 15:17 -

So, we have the Gospels filled with implausibilities and fiction about Jesus, if just a man, and we have a supposed contemporary of this man, Paul, who wrote nothing personal about him at all when on earth.

Jesus MUST have been or most probably a fictitious character.

The supposed man did nothing but fiction in the Gospels, from conception to ascension, and his supposed contemporary wrote nothing personal about him except a fictitious implausible resurrection.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since Jesus did nothing but fiction and his contemporary wrote nothing at all about him except fiction.

Toto

If you don't have anything new to say, we can close this thread.

aa5874

How can you determine what else I have to say? This is extremely odd. You have not done this to others who have threads open for months.

Something is extremely wrong here.

Please explain the rules for closing a thread? Are there rules?

This is the third attempt to close the thread without any known reason.

avi

There are at least two good reasons to close it, now.

First: This is the end of the year. We all like to clean our financial affairs by the end of the year, balance the gains and losses, rearrange the portfolio, and so on.... The same is true of the forum. We need to commence a practice of nominating the most useful, most provocative, most educational, and most outrageous threads of the past calendar year, so that folks can give feedback to the members who initiated threads, and so that we can learn by rereading our previous submissions, and so that we can better organize our own research, for next year's submissions.

Second. You are expending too much time on this one thread, at the expense of providing much needed input to other threads, of equal merit to your own, threads which may lack participation, or which may represent minority viewpoints. Your powerful message ought not be diluted by focusing too much attention on only a single thread. Your main point in this thread has been elaborated, numerous times, and it is time for you, now, to regroup, and reassess, in preparation for the next battle......

Please do not interpret Toto's reaction as one seeking to limit your input to the forum, but rather, a recognition by many forum participants that your unique perspective ought not be constrained to within a single topic for such a prolonged period of time....

avi

aa5874

I totally disagree with you.

There are threads that are dormant for months that are left open. Some threads have virtually no activity and are left untouched.

My thread is one of the most active right now with over 400 posts and over 6000 views.

And I want my thread to stay open.

People who disagree that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition are actively engaging me which is PRECISELY what I expect.

My thread is not a DEAD thread like some others.

And I have much more to post I have not even started to use the writings of Philo to show that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

Perhaps Toto can close those DEAD threads that nobody are even viewing and have no response for months and sometimes over a year..

Larkin31

I have never denied the mythological information. I don't even believe in a divine Jesus nor the mythological components that point to divinity. How many times do I have to tell you this?

But I see that you will again not answer my question about the validity of Biblical texts as a source for your argument. And you wonder why a mod might consider saying "enough is enough"?

aa5874

Well, if you do NOT believe the Divine characteristics of Jesus then you are implying that information in the NT about the Divinity of Jesus is false or not likely to be true.

And, you must notice that it was his supposed Divinity that allowed the writers to claim he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost,the Creator, was tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, that he healed incurable diseases, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

All those actions and characteristics are directly dependent on the supposed Divinity of Jesus, once his Divinity is not believed then Jesus did not do any of these actions or have those qualities.


So, now tell me what is true in the NT about Jesus and what source of antiquity can support the truth about Jesus?

And how did he managed to be deified in Jerusalem, after he was accused of blasphemy, when he was not Divine and bearing in mind that not even King David was deified or any other Jewish King or prophet?

I thought by now that you would have deduced why I use the Bible as a source of antiquity.

The answer is simply. The Bible was compiled using sources of antiquity.

If I want to find out the origin of Jesus the God/Man, I simply read Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35. It was the offspring of the Ghost of God.

If I want to find out what the Ghost of God did in Galilee, Carpernaum, Caesarea or Jerusalem, I must rely on the Gospels.

If I want to find out the supposed people the offspring of the Holy Ghost met during his life on earth, I must read the NT.

I would not have known that Jesus walked on water or was crucified except I read the NT and Church writings.

What credible source do you know of that can tell me about Jesus of Nazareth outside the NT and Church writings?

Or even better, tell me the credible historical sources that contain your hypothetical Jesus so that I can rely on them.

Can you answer any of my questions even one? Or a half of one?

Larkin31

I answer your questions honestly every time, without the note of arrogance that you cannot seem to write without.

I don't know what is true about a real man Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospels. No one does. It is a matter of faith, and I do not have the faith. However, as I have said from the start, one needs more than lack of evidence from 2000 years ago to build a theory of conspiracy.

And my point about the Bible is that you reject it as fiction yet you also rely on it to make your argument. Nothing you have written here or argued in any way determines whether or not Jesus was divine, nor whether or not he existed as a human. All you are pointing out is that there is a paucity of sources outside the canon, and this of course we all already knew. The rest is speculation of one form or another. :huh:

But at least you are no longer mischaracterizing what many Christians believe about the co-existence of a divine spirit in a human body.