aa5874

Incredibly, most amazingly, you claim the Mythicist position is unsupportable and have presented a position that is completely UNSUBSTANTIATED and UNSUPPORTED.

Not one single non-apologetic source SUPPORT your imagination Jesus.

Now, the Mythicist position is the ONLY position that is supported that is PRECISELY why there is a QUEST for the historical Jesus.

There are EXISTING sources of antiquity that SUPPORT the claim that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator that transfigured and Walked on water.

See the Gospels for Support.

Why do still believe the very writings that you have discredited?? Because you have NO credible support for your imagination.

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost in the NT.

Why don't you believe it was a Ghost story???

Why is it so difficult to accept that the Canon is about a MYTH Fable???

If I publicly declared Orally and in Writing that a Son of Ghost was Executed in New York city 40 years ago would you believe me?

I really don't understand why people believe Ghost stories contain history.

I know Ghost stories when I SEE one.

Now if Jesus was the Son of a Ghost in Ghost stories and his disciples SAW him walking on the sea what kind of "people" were the disciples??

I would say ghost people until there is credible evidence to contradict.

The Apostles of Jesus were also Ghosts.

AtheistGamer

Josephus does. And a non-interpolated copy was found years ago, which said exactly what scholars theorized a non-interpolated copy would say.

You are confusing Jesus of the Gospels with the Jesus of reality.


Actually I don't believe them. I believe sources other than the ones which I have discredited.


Yes, but in the NT Jesus was also a physical man.

Because I can tell the difference between being the son of a ghost, and actually being a ghost. Also because I can differentiate Gospel Jesus with Historical Jesus.

Lack of evidence in favor of that position.

The part about the dead man being the son of a ghost, no. The part about the man dying, not unless I had another source which said the man lived and died. In the case of Jesus we do.


The NT story is not a ghost story.

If aa saw a ghost then aa must also be a ghost. Anybody can see that this argument is a total non-sequitur. Give me a break.